Page images

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

[blocks in formation]

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......


[blocks in formation]


Hale-Ormsby 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.


Page--State v.

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.


.... 601

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




Wright-State v.

Page Yankton Savings , Bank et al v. Gutterson


Yankton Savings Bank et al.-Mc

Cormick .Harvesting Machine Co. v.






State of South Dakota.


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.

[blocks in formation]

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.
J. E. Robinson, for appellant.

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.

« PreviousContinue »