Twinting v. Finlay

75 N.W. 548, 55 Neb. 152, 1898 Neb. LEXIS 536
CourtNebraska Supreme Court
DecidedMay 19, 1898
DocketNo. 8063
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 75 N.W. 548 (Twinting v. Finlay) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Nebraska Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Twinting v. Finlay, 75 N.W. 548, 55 Neb. 152, 1898 Neb. LEXIS 536 (Neb. 1898).

Opinion

Norval, J.

Tbis was an action to foreclose a tax deed, and from a decree in favor of tbe plaintiff tbe defendants bave prosecuted an appeal.

It is insisted that tbe defendants bad paid tbe taxes •to .the county treasurer, for wbicb tbe real estate was sold, prior to tbe date of such sale. A careful perusal and consideration of- tbe evidence adduced on tbe trial convinces us that tbe defendants paid no portion of tbe taxes included in tbe decree.

It is finally argued that tbe taxes are invalid because the assessor failed to attach bis oath to tbe assessment roll for the year 1890. At tbe time of tbe trial in tbe court below it does appear that no oath of tbe assessor [153]*153was attached to the assessment book, nor was such oath to be found in the office of the county clerk of Douglas county. It is not alleged in the answer, nor was it proven upon the trial, that the assessor did not make oath to his return at the time he deposited the same with the county clerk. The mere failure to attach the assessor’s oath to the assessment roll did not invalidate the tax based upon such, assessment. The omission was an irregularity merely. (Wood v. Helmer, 10 Neb. 65; South Platte Land Co. v. City of Crete, 11 Neb. 344; Hallo v. Helmer, 12 Neb. 87; McClure v. Warner, 16 Neb; 447; Merriam v. Dovey, 25 Neb. 618; Roads v. Estabrook, 35 Neb. 297; Johnson v. Finley, 54 Neb. 733.) These cases are-decisive of the question. The decree is right, and is

AFFIRMED.

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

Related

Security Trust & Savings Bank v. Mitts
261 N.W. 625 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1935)
Protest of Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Co.
1931 OK 266 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1931)
Hannan v. First Nat. Bank
269 F. 527 (Eighth Circuit, 1920)
Board of Com'rs of Garfield Co. v. Field
1916 OK 533 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1916)
Armstrong v. Jarron
125 P. 170 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1912)
State Finance Co. v. Mather
109 N.W. 350 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1906)
Beggs v. Paine
109 N.W. 322 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1906)
Mining v. Territory of Arizona
84 P. 85 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1906)
Corbet v. Town of Rocksbury
103 N.W. 11 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1905)
Warfield-Pratt-Howell Co. v. Averill Grocery Co.
93 N.W. 80 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1903)
Grant v. Bartholomew
78 N.W. 314 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1899)
Spiech v. Tierney
76 N.W. 1090 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1898)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
75 N.W. 548, 55 Neb. 152, 1898 Neb. LEXIS 536, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/twinting-v-finlay-neb-1898.