Smith v. Easton

Supreme Court of Iowa

Smith v. Easton

37 Iowa 584

CourtSupreme Court of Iowa

DecidedDecember 15, 1873

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 37 Iowa 584 (Smith v. Easton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Iowa primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Smith v. Easton, 37 Iowa 584 (iowa 1873).

Pincite

Opinion

Miller, J.

The plaintiff annexes a copy of the tax deed of the defendant as an exhibit to his petition. It shows that the land in controversy — an eighty-acre tract — was sold by the treasurer “ on the 5th day of January, 1863, at an adjourned sale begun and publicly held on the first Monday of October, 1862, for the taxes due and delinquent thereon for the year 1861.” The plaintiff claims that the deed is void on its face because it shows that a tract of more than forty acres was sold for a gross sum. The defendant, in his answer, accepted this theory of the law and asked the court to compel the treasurer to make separate deeds for each forty-acre tract, alleging that the land had been in fact thus sold.

It is not illegal nor even irregular, in the case of known owners, to sell lands for the delinquent taxes thereon, in tracts greater than forty acres. It is only in case of non-resident owners that such sales would be irregular; and when it does not appear on the face of the deed that the land was assessed to an unknown owner, it will not be so presumed, and such deed, showing a sale of a tract of more than forty acres for the taxes due and delinquent thereon, shows no illegality or irregularity in this respect, but, on the contrary, its regularity affirmatively appears. Bulkley v. Callanan, 32 Iowa, 461, 464, and cases cited.

[586]*586The treasurer’s deed in this ease fails to show that the land was assessed to an unknown owner, and consequently it does, not show that the sale of an eighty-acre tract was illegal or irregular, but the contrary.

Again, it is well settled that in respect to the manner or mode of making the sale, the tax deed is conclusive evidence that the sale was conducted in the mcmner required by law. Rima v. Cowan, et al., 31 Iowa, 125; Bulkley v. Callanan, supra, and cases cited ; unless when it shows on its face that the law has been violated. Boardmam v. Bourne, 20 Iowa, 134.

The deed in this case is, on its face, regular and valid, and the court erred in sustaining the demurrer, and in rendering judgment for plaintiff. See Smith v. Easton, ante, 584.

Reversed.

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

Miller, J.

The plaintiff annexes a copy of the tax deed of the defendant as an exhibit to his petition. It shows that the land in controversy — an eighty-acre tract — was sold by the treasurer “ on the 5th day of January, 1863, at an adjourned sale begun and publicly held on the first Monday of October, 1862, for the taxes due and delinquent thereon for the year 1861.” The plaintiff claims that the deed is void on its face because it shows that a tract of more than forty acres was sold for a gross sum. The defendant, in his answer, accepted this theory of the law and asked the court to compel the treasurer to make separate deeds for each forty-acre tract, alleging that the land had been in fact thus sold.

It is not illegal nor even irregular, in the case of known owners, to sell lands for the delinquent taxes thereon, in tracts greater than forty acres. It is only in case of non-resident owners that such sales would be irregular; and when it does not appear on the face of the deed that the land was assessed to an unknown owner, it will not be so presumed, and such deed, showing a sale of a tract of more than forty acres for the taxes due and delinquent thereon, shows no illegality or irregularity in this respect, but, on the contrary, its regularity affirmatively appears. Bulkley v. Callanan, 32 Iowa, 461, 464, and cases cited.

[586]*586The treasurer’s deed in this ease fails to show that the land was assessed to an unknown owner, and consequently it does, not show that the sale of an eighty-acre tract was illegal or irregular, but the contrary.

Again, it is well settled that in respect to the manner or mode of making the sale, the tax deed is conclusive evidence that the sale was conducted in the mcmner required by law. Rima v. Cowan, et al., 31 Iowa, 125; Bulkley v. Callanan, supra, and cases cited ; unless when it shows on its face that the law has been violated. Boardmam v. Bourne, 20 Iowa, 134.

The deed in this case is, on its face, regular and valid, and the court erred in sustaining the demurrer, and in rendering judgment for plaintiff. See Smith v. Easton, ante, 584.

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

37 Iowa 584, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-easton-iowa-1873.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack