Keller v. Davis

160 P. 946, 93 Wash. 336, 1916 Wash. LEXIS 1194
CourtWashington Supreme Court
DecidedNovember 13, 1916
DocketNo. 13490
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 160 P. 946 (Keller v. Davis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Washington Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Keller v. Davis, 160 P. 946, 93 Wash. 336, 1916 Wash. LEXIS 1194 (Wash. 1916).

Opinion

Holcomb, J.

Appellant began this action in June, 1915, to quiet title against a tax deed issued by the treasurer of Stevens county after judgment of foreclosure of certificate of delinquency on October 7, 1911.

Appellant averred that the judgment in foreclosure was utterly void for want of valid process, thus avoiding the treasurer’s deed; that respondents have never been in possession of the land, which is wild and vacant; that appellant, after execution of the tax deed, paid all general taxes since [337]*337assessed against the land, thus retaining constructive possession of the land against the purchaser; and that tender of the amount paid for the certificate of delinquency, plus interest, had been refused by the purchasers of the tax deed. The court sustained a demurrer to appellant’s amended complaint upon the ground that the action is barred by the statute of limitations of such actions, Rem. 1915 Code, § 162, which is as follows:

“Actions to set aside or cancel the deed of any county treasurer issued after and upon the sale of lands for general, state, county or municipal taxes, or for the recovery of lands sold for delinquent taxes, must be brought within three years from and after the date of the issuance of such treasurer’s deed; Provided, this section shall not apply to actions not otherwise barred on deeds heretofore issued if the same be commenced within one year after the passage of this act.”

This case is manifestly governed by the reasoning and the rule announced in the cases of: Huber v. Brown, 57 Wash. 654, 107 Pac. 850; Baylis v. Kerrick, 64 Wash. 410, 116 Pac. 1082; Fleming v. Stearns, 66 Wash. 655, 120 Pac. 522; Savage v. Ash, 86 Wash. 43, 149 Pac. 325.

The action is barred. The judgment of the superior court is affirmed.

Morris, C. J., Main, and Parker, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Turpen v. Johnson
175 P.2d 495 (Washington Supreme Court, 1946)
Elliott v. Clement
151 P.2d 739 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1944)
National Surety Corp. v. Smith
123 P.2d 203 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1941)
White v. Gehrman
96 P.2d 453 (Washington Supreme Court, 1939)
Jorgensen v. Thurston County
259 P. 720 (Washington Supreme Court, 1927)
Tamblin v. Crowley
168 P. 982 (Washington Supreme Court, 1917)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
160 P. 946, 93 Wash. 336, 1916 Wash. LEXIS 1194, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/keller-v-davis-wash-1916.