« PreviousContinue »
Page Elder et al. v. Horseshoe Mining and Milling Co. et al.
124 Engel et al.—Mattes v.
Page Iowa and Dakota Telephone Co. v.
Schamber, State Treasurer 588
Jencks et al. v. Murphy et al. 425 Johnson v. Plotner et al.
154 Jordan, Sheriff, et al.-Anderson V.
395 Jordeth et al.--Nelson v.
46 J. I. Case Threshing Machine Co. v. Eichinger, et al.
530 Keenan et al.-Bohn Mfg. Co. v... 377 Kelly V. Anderson
107 Kemmerer-State V.
504 Kenefick-Meldrum v.
370 Kirby v. Crisp (Sioux Falls Savings Bank, intervener).
33 Kirby v. Berguin
444 Knapp v. Saunders
464 Kolbe v. Harrington, Sheriff 263 Kountz v. Kountz et al.
66 Kountz et al.--Kountz, V..
66 Krueger v. Dodge et al.
159 Kuenert--Gilson et al. v..
Gaar, Scott & Co.--Baskerville v.. 211 Garlock v. Calkins et al.
459 Garvin v. Pettee et al..
266 Gates v. McGee, Circuit Judge et al 247 Germain-Cochran V.
77 Gilson et al y. Kuenert
291 Gionnonatti v. Michelletti et al... 126 Glenwood Gold and Silver Mining Co. et al.--Summers v.
20 Grigsby v. Plankinton Bank et al. .431 et al
431 Gutterson Yankton Savings Bank et al. V......
.206 Hammerquist et al V. Pioneer Savings and Loan Co.
70 Harrington, Sheriff-Kolbe v. 263 Harrison v. State Banking and Trust Co
304 Henry v. Henry Henry-Henry v.
80 Hermon v. Silver
476 Higinbotham-Dowagiac Mfg. Co. v.
547 Hill v. Whale Mining Co. et al. 574 Hood et al. v. Fay.
84 Holm v. First National Bank of Clark
75 Hollister et al. -Coughran v. 318 Hollister-McCarrier V.
366 Home Investment Co. v. Clarson et al.
513 Horner-City of Madison v.
359 Horseshoe Mining and Milling Co. et al.-Elder et al v.....
124 Hubbell v. Town of Custer City.. 55 Hughes v. Rudy
Mach v. Blanchard
432 Maloney-Rector and Wilhelmy Co. v.
271 Markley et ux.—Coughran v. 37 Mattes v. Engel et al.
330 Mattice v. Street
63 McCarrier V. Hollister
366 McConnell et al. v. Spicker.
98 McCormick Harvesting Machine
Co. v. Yankton Savings Bank et al.
196 McGee, Circuit Judge, et al.Gates v.
247 McKinley-Tobin v.
257 Meldrum v. Kenefick
370 Merchants National Bank v. Steb
bins et al. Michelletti et al.-Gionnonatti v. 126 Muller V. Flavin
Page Murphy et al-Jencks et al. v. .... 425 Murphy v. Plankinton Bank et al. 431
Naddy v. Dietze et al
26 National Bank of Canton (Keller Intervener) Dunn v.
454 Nelson v. Jordeth et al.
46 Neumen et al.-Lee v..
642 New Birdsall Co.-Shull v.
8 Nordin v. Berner et al
611 Northwestern Elevator Co. v. Lee et al.
114, Novotney et al-Davis v.
118 Ormsby v. Hale
Page Shull v. New Birdsall Co.
8 Silver--Hermon v.
476 Smithson y. Fall River County 34 Spicker-McConnell et al. v.
98 Stalnacke--Coleman V.
242 Stokes V. Allen
421 State v. Bergland
638 State v. Bradley
148 State V. Caddy
167 State ex rel. Brown V. City of Pierre
559 State v. De Masters
580 State V. Edwards
383 State Banking and Trust Co.Harrison v.
304 State v. Kemmerer
504 State v. Page,
613 State er rel. Cosper v. Porter, Sheriff et ai.
387 State v. Sanford
153 State y. Wright
628 Stebbins et al.--Merchants National Bank v.
280 Sterling, County Treasurer et al. --Coler et al v..
415 Stokes-Catlett v.
635 Street-Mattice v.
63 Summers v. Glenwood Gold and Silver Mining Co. et al.
20 Sutton et al. v. Consolidated Apex Mining Co. et al.
613 Park et al. (Ask intervener). Finch et al. V...
339 Park et al. v. Robinson et al. 551 Pendo et al. v. Beakey.
344 Pendo et al. v. Blythe
358 Perry et al.-Rechelt, et al. v.. 601 Persons v. Van Tassal et al.
362 Peters v. Fell et al.
391 Peterson v. Peterson,
462 Peterson-Peterson v.
462 Pettee et al.-Garvin v...
266 Pioneer Savings and Loan Co.Hammerquist et al. v.
70 Pioneer Savings and Loan Co. v. Dyer et al.
133 Plakninton Bank et al-Lyon v... 400 Plankinton Bank et al.-Grigsby, V.
431 Plankinton Bank et al.-Murphy v. 431 Plotner et al.-Johnson v.
154 Pollock et al. v. Wright et al. 134 Porter, Sheriff et al.--State ex rel. Cosper v.
387 Rector & Wilhelmy Co. v. Maloney 271 Reichelt et al. v. Perry et al. Reisdorfer et al.-Dennett et al. v. 466 Riley-Edmonds v.
470 Robinson et al.- Park et al. v.. 551 Rudy-Hughes V.
460 Sands v. Cruikshank et al.
142 Sanford-State v.
153 Saunders-Knapp v.
464 Schamber, State Treasurer-Iowa
and Dakota Telephone Co. V..... 588 Schilling v. Twitchell
296 Seaman-Wilson v.
103 Shanklin-Distad v.
Taylor v. Vandenberg et al
480 Thomas—Troy Mining Co. v. 238 Tobin v. McKinney
257 Town of Custer City--Hubbell v.. 55 Town of Mellette et al.-Lee et al. 586 Troy Mining Co. v. Thomas. 238 Turner Township--William V... 182 Twitchell-Schilling v.
Vandenberg et al.-Taylor v..... 480 Van Tassal et al-Persons v...... 362
Webster v. Lamb
292 Whale Mining Co. et al.-Hill v....574 Wilson v. Board of Education of City of Huron
317 Wilson v. Commercial Union Insurance Co.
322 Williams v. Turner Township 182 Wilson v. Seaman
103 Wood et al.--Chamberlain vi 216 Wiley v. Carson et al
298 Wright et al-Pollock et al v..... 134
Page Yankton Savings , Bank et al v. Gutterson
Yankton Savings Bank et al.-Mc
Cormick .Harvesting Machine Co. v.
CASES ARGUED AND DETERMINED
State of South Dakota.
BENNETT V. DARLING et al.
1. Under Comp. Laws, g 5449, providing that an action may be brought
against any person claiming an interest in real estate adverse to plaintiff, a complaint in a suit to quiet title is sufficient to state a cause of action which alleges that plaintiff is the owner and in possession under a tax deed, and which sets out the proceedings culminating in the tax sale, and alleges that the defendants claim title though conveyances and mortgages from prior owners, but that plain
tiff's title is superior thereto. 2. Where the objection in a suit to quiet title that the tax deed on which
plaintiff relies is invalid on its face is presented by an objection to its introduction in evidence, it may be considered on appeal, though the appeal is from the judgment alone, and the evidence is not in the record.
3. Separate parcels of land sold for taxes to the same person may be in
cluded in the same deed, either at common law, or under Laws 1891, Chap. 14, § 110, expressly authorizing such practice.
4. The inclusion of several separate tracts of land sold for taxes to the
same person in one deed does not raise a presumption that the land
was sold in gross, instead of in separate parcels. 5. Where the complaint in an action to quiet title by a taxpayer alleges
the proceedings leading to the tax sale, and the defendants deny all allegations concerning the assessment of taxes, on information and belief, the pleadings put the validity of the assessment in issue, and authorize a reference to determine the taxes properly charge
able against the land. 6. The defendants in a suit to quiet a tax title who are defeated cannot
complain of the action of the court in giving them an opportunity to secure the cancellation of the tax deed by paying the taxes, interest, and costs.
(Opinion filed June 12, 1901.)
Appeal from circuit court, Hughes county. Hon. LORING E. GAFFY, Judge.
Action by Cassius C. Bennett against Charles W. Darling and others to quiet a tax title. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, certain defendants appeal. Affirmed.
The facts are stated in the opinion.
All essential steps leading up to a valid tax must be alleged and proven by the party seeking to enforce the tax. Comp. Laws, Sec. 1643; O'Neil v. Tyler, 3 N. Dak. 47, 61; Swenson v. Greenland, 4 N. Dak. 532; Salmer v. Lathrop, 10 S. D. 216, 227.
The tax deed is void on its face, because it embraces several distinct lots, purporting to have been sold en masse for a gross consideration. Salmer v. Lathrop, 10 S. D. 216, 225. Such sales are clearly and unquestionably void. O'Neil v. Tyler, 3 N. D. 47, 52; Power v. Larabee, 2 N. D. 141, 148; First National Bank v. Roberts, 79, N. W. Rep. 1050; Black on Tax Titles, Sec. 123; Cooley on Taxatation, (2nd. Ed.) 493, 494.