State ex rel. Farnham v. Bowker

4 Kan. 114
CourtSupreme Court of Kansas
DecidedJuly 15, 1866
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 4 Kan. 114 (State ex rel. Farnham v. Bowker) 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
State ex rel. Farnham v. Bowker, 4 Kan. 114 (kan 1866).

Opinion

By the Court,

Safford, J.

The petition of the relator shows upon its face that he is not entitled, under the law, to the relief sought. It appears that on the 11th'day of July, 1866, he made his application to the respondent, as treasurer of Shawnee county, for an assignment and delivery to him, of a certain tax certificate held by Shawnee county, said application being based upon the provisions of sec. 9, chap. 37, laws of 1864, and secs. 74 and 88, chap. 118, laws of 1866. He tendered to the respondent, as such treasurer aforesaid, the amount of taxes, costs, and penalty due on the land covered by the certificate in question, for the years 1863, 1864 and 1865. This was not a sufficient tender to entitle him to demand and receive the tax certificate. The penalty of ten per [117]*117cent., which, was added to the amount of taxes due on the 12th day of January, in each year, as by law it was provided should be done, in case the taxes of the previous year should remain unpaid on that day, when so added, became, and by operation of law, was a part and parcel of the taxes due. § 24, Chap. 60, Laws of 1863.

The amount, then, of the tax and penalty, in each year, would constitute the principal, as the term is used in sec. '88, chap. 118, laws of 1866, above referred to. Therefore, in addition to such amount for each year, it was necessary for the relator to tender to the treasurer the amount of the costs of sale, and ten per cent, on the amount of principal, as we have held that word to mean as above, which, in this instance, would amount in the aggregate, to a larger sum than was tendered. Failing, therefore, to bring himself within the meaning and provisions of the law governing the terms of his application to the treasurer, as shown in the record, the relator must be denied the relief prayed for. Other questions raised by counsel will not be considered.

All the justices concurring.

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

Related

State of California v. Hisey
84 F.2d 802 (Ninth Circuit, 1936)
Board of County Commissioners v. City of Wichita
64 P. 621 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1901)
Board of Commissioners v. State ex rel. Michener
22 N.E. 10 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1889)
Kansas Pacific Railway Co. v. Amrine
10 Kan. 318 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1872)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
4 Kan. 114, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-farnham-v-bowker-kan-1866.