Nichols v. Trueman

101 P. 633, 80 Kan. 89, 1909 Kan. LEXIS 20
Supreme Court of Kansas·Decided April 10, 1909·No. No. 15,946·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam:

The motion to dismiss must be denied. The cause was submitted below on an agreed statement of facts, and a motion for a new trial was unnecessary. (Atkins v. Nordyke, 60 Kan. 354.) The only question presented to, or passed upon by, the trial court was a question of law.

The court held the tax deed void on its face because of its failure to state the address or residence of the grantee. The deed is a compromise tax deed, and had been of récord five years when this action was commenced. Since the case was decided by the trial court we have held, in Havel v. Abstract Co., 76 Kan. 336, and Trust Co. v. Davis, 76 Kan. 639, that such omission in a tax deed which has been of record for five years will not render the deed void on its face. On the authority of these cases the judgment-is reversed and the cause remanded, with directions to enter judgment for the defendant.

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

Nichols v. Trueman, 101 P. 633, 80 Kan. 89, 1909 Kan. LEXIS 20 (kan 1909).

101 P. 633 (Nichols v. Trueman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Colyer v. Wood
283 P.2d 398 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1955)
Willey v. Gas Service Co.
281 P.2d 1092 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1955)
Cramer v. Browne
155 P.2d 468 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1945)
Central Fibre Products Co. v. State Tax Commission
95 P.2d 353 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1939)
Schubach v. Hammer
232 P. 1041 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1925)
Close v. Lucky O. K. Mining Co.
182 P. 392 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1919)
McLeod v. Palmer
150 P. 535 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1915)
Bowen v. Wilson
144 P. 251 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1914)