Williams v. Hall

Supreme Court of Kansas

Williams v. Hall

121 P. 917, 86 Kan. 807, 1912 Kan. LEXIS 393

CourtSupreme Court of Kansas

DecidedMarch 9, 1912

DocketNo. 17,519

StatusPublished

This text of 121 P. 917 (Williams v. Hall) 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

Williams v. Hall, 121 P. 917, 86 Kan. 807, 1912 Kan. LEXIS 393 (kan 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

The tax deed does not show on its face that the lots were sold for less than the amount of the taxes. In Logsdon v. Hodges, 84 Kan. 456, 114 Pac. 854, the case relied upon by appellant, the deed was a compromise deed and was held void because it appeared on its face that the certificate was assigned by the county for less than the amount of redemption. .Here the sale was made directly to the purchaser and, unlike the tax deeds referred to in the other cases cited by appellant, the deed shows that the lots were sold separately for the amount of the taxes', penalty, and costs then due and remaining unpaid thereon. No defect in the deed was shown to the trial court and we are unable to discover upon what ground it should be held void, It conveyed the title to the appellant. The appellant conveyed by quitclaim deed to the appellee, who was in possession when the action in ejectment was commenced. There was nothing to submit to the jury and the court properly directed a verdict.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

Per Curiam:

The tax deed does not show on its face that the lots were sold for less than the amount of the taxes. In Logsdon v. Hodges, 84 Kan. 456, 114 Pac. 854, the case relied upon by appellant, the deed was a compromise deed and was held void because it appeared on its face that the certificate was assigned by the county for less than the amount of redemption. .Here the sale was made directly to the purchaser and, unlike the tax deeds referred to in the other cases cited by appellant, the deed shows that the lots were sold separately for the amount of the taxes', penalty, and costs then due and remaining unpaid thereon. No defect in the deed was shown to the trial court and we are unable to discover upon what ground it should be held void, It conveyed the title to the appellant. The appellant conveyed by quitclaim deed to the appellee, who was in possession when the action in ejectment was commenced. There was nothing to submit to the jury and the court properly directed a verdict.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

121 P. 917, 86 Kan. 807, 1912 Kan. LEXIS 393, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-hall-kan-1912.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack