Robidoux v. Munson

Supreme Court of Kansas

Robidoux v. Munson

88 P. 1085, 75 Kan. 207, 1907 Kan. LEXIS 41

CourtSupreme Court of Kansas

DecidedFebruary 9, 1907

DocketNo. 14,880

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 88 P. 1085 (Robidoux v. Munson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Kansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Robidoux v. Munson, 88 P. 1085, 75 Kan. 207, 1907 Kan. LEXIS 41 (kan 1907).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Mason, J.:

In a suit brought to foreclose a real-estate mortgage Peter Robidoux, who had possession of the land under a tax deed, was made a defendant. His deed was set aside and he prosecutes error. He first complains of the refusal of the trial court to permit him to interpose the statute of limitations as a defense to the mortgage. It has been repeatedly decided by this court that one not in privity with the maker of a mortgage cannot avail himself of that plea against it. (Ordway v. Cowles, 45 Kan. 447, 25 Pac. 862; Trust Co. v. Parker, 65 Kan. 819, 70 Pac. 892; Bare v. Ford, 74 Kan. 593, 598, 87 Pac. 731.) The reasons urged against this doctrine are not regarded as sufficient to require a reexamination of it.

The only remaining question is whether the tax deed was invalid upon its face. It omitted to state the amount for which the property was bid off by the county treasurer. This rendered it void, unless the omission could be supplied by inference reasonably to be drawn from some other recital. The amount paid to the county treasurer for an assignment is stated, and if this had been made up only of the selling price, and interest, as in Fullington v. Jobling, post, the deed could have been upheld. But an interval of more than two years elapsed after the sale before the certificate was assigned to an individual. The amount paid for the assignment necessarily included taxes that accrued after the property was sold. How much of it was made up of the selling price and how much of the subsequent [209]*209taxes is not stated, and cannot be ascertained from the face of the instrument. The defect noted therefore remained unremedied and the deed was properly set aside.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Mason, J.:

In a suit brought to foreclose a real-estate mortgage Peter Robidoux, who had possession of the land under a tax deed, was made a defendant. His deed was set aside and he prosecutes error. He first complains of the refusal of the trial court to permit him to interpose the statute of limitations as a defense to the mortgage. It has been repeatedly decided by this court that one not in privity with the maker of a mortgage cannot avail himself of that plea against it. (Ordway v. Cowles, 45 Kan. 447, 25 Pac. 862; Trust Co. v. Parker, 65 Kan. 819, 70 Pac. 892; Bare v. Ford, 74 Kan. 593, 598, 87 Pac. 731.) The reasons urged against this doctrine are not regarded as sufficient to require a reexamination of it.

The only remaining question is whether the tax deed was invalid upon its face. It omitted to state the amount for which the property was bid off by the county treasurer. This rendered it void, unless the omission could be supplied by inference reasonably to be drawn from some other recital. The amount paid to the county treasurer for an assignment is stated, and if this had been made up only of the selling price, and interest, as in Fullington v. Jobling, post, the deed could have been upheld. But an interval of more than two years elapsed after the sale before the certificate was assigned to an individual. The amount paid for the assignment necessarily included taxes that accrued after the property was sold. How much of it was made up of the selling price and how much of the subsequent [209]*209taxes is not stated, and cannot be ascertained from the face of the instrument. The defect noted therefore remained unremedied and the deed was properly set aside.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

88 P. 1085, 75 Kan. 207, 1907 Kan. LEXIS 41, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robidoux-v-munson-kan-1907.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack