Stevens v. Doughty

South Dakota Supreme Court

Stevens v. Doughty

112 N.W. 1143, 21 S.D. 337, 1907 S.D. LEXIS 54

DecidedMay 29, 1907

StatusPublished

This text of 112 N.W. 1143 (Stevens v. Doughty) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering South Dakota Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Stevens v. Doughty, 112 N.W. 1143, 21 S.D. 337, 1907 S.D. LEXIS 54 (S.D. 1907).

Pincite

Opinion

HANEY, J.

This is an action to determine adverse claims to certain real property, title to which is in the plaintiff, unless divesied by operation of a tax deed, under which defendant claims to be the owner, recorded more than three years before the action was commenced. The learned circuit court, holding the tax deed to be valid on its face, decided that the defendant is the owner in fee, entitled to possession as against the plaintiff and all persons claiming under him, and that the plaintiff has no right, title, or interest in oi to' the land in controversy. The tax sale took place November 7, 1892. The recitals in the deed as to the manner of the sale are the same as those considered by this court in the recent case of King v. Dane, 21 S. D. 101, 110 N. W. 37. For the reasons therein stated, the deed involved in this action should have been regarded as void on its face. The judgment and order denying a new trial are reversed.

CORSON, J., not sitting.

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

HANEY, J.

This is an action to determine adverse claims to certain real property, title to which is in the plaintiff, unless divesied by operation of a tax deed, under which defendant claims to be the owner, recorded more than three years before the action was commenced. The learned circuit court, holding the tax deed to be valid on its face, decided that the defendant is the owner in fee, entitled to possession as against the plaintiff and all persons claiming under him, and that the plaintiff has no right, title, or interest in oi to' the land in controversy. The tax sale took place November 7, 1892. The recitals in the deed as to the manner of the sale are the same as those considered by this court in the recent case of King v. Dane, 21 S. D. 101, 110 N. W. 37. For the reasons therein stated, the deed involved in this action should have been regarded as void on its face. The judgment and order denying a new trial are reversed.

CORSON, J., not sitting.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

112 N.W. 1143, 21 S.D. 337, 1907 S.D. LEXIS 54, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stevens-v-doughty-sd-1907.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack