Home/Indiana Supreme Court/Reed v. Earhart

Reed v. Earhart

88 Ind. 159
CourtIndiana Supreme Court
DecidedNovember 15, 1882
DocketNo. 10,115
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 88 Ind. 159 (Reed v. Earhart) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Reed v. Earhart, 88 Ind. 159 (Ind. 1882).

Opinion

Morris, C.

— The appellee, as the executor of Solomon Romig, brought this suit against the appellant to quiet his title to ‘certain real estate situate in Tippecanoe county, to wit:' The east half of the northeast quarter of section two, in township twenty-four north, of range five west, except 49.40 rods off of the north end, the residue containing forty-eight acres; the west half of northwest quartet of section one, in said township and range, containing seventy-five acres; the east half of the south half of the south half of the southwest quarter of section seventeen, in township twenty-four north, of range four west' containing twenty acres, except five acres off of the east side; sixty-six and acres off’ of the south half of the northeast fractional quarter of section one, in township twenty-four . north, of range five west, which is particularly described in the complaint; and the south.half of the east half of the northwest fraction of section one, in township twenty-four north, of range five west, containing forty acres; sold by the sheriff of said county as the property of Perry E. Kellogg, Virginia Kellogg and El vila Kellogg, to pay and satisfy a judglnent and decree of foreclosure'against said Perry E., Virginia and El vila Kellogg; that the plaintiff became the purchaser of said land at said sheriff’s sale, and received from the sheriff a certificate for the purchase of said land; that, on the 26th day of October, 1880, said land not having been redeemed from said sale, said sheriff executed and delivered to the appellee a deed for the same; that by said purchase he became and now is the owner in fee'and in the possession of said real estate.

It is then averred that no part of said real estate had been assessed for taxation for the years 1875,1876,1877,1878,1879, or for any of said years, except one of said tracts, which was ■ assessed for the years 1875, 1876 and 1877; that all of the taxes assessed against said land for the year 1874, and previous years, and also the April instalment for 1875, were paid prior to the year 1878.

It is further averred that upon the assessment books of said county there appears the following void assessment list

[161]*161

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

Related

Patterson v. Gary Land Co.
188 N.E. 685 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1934)
Tongut v. State
151 N.E. 427 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1926)
Sullenger v. Baecher
101 N.E. 517 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1913)
Brown v. Reeves & Co.
68 N.E. 604 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1903)
McDonald v. Geisendorff
27 N.E. 333 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1891)
Ball v. Barnes
24 N.E. 142 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1890)
Morrison v. Jacoby
114 Ind. 84 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1888)
State ex rel. MacKenzie v. Casteel
11 N.E. 219 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1887)
Barton v. Anderson
4 N.E. 420 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1886)
Scott v. Millikan
3 N.E. 647 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1885)
Baker v. Clem
26 N.E. 215 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1885)
Cooper v. Jackson
99 Ind. 566 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1885)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
88 Ind. 159, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reed-v-earhart-ind-1882.