Sutton v. Stone
Nebraska Supreme Court
Error to the district court of Johnson county. It was an action of ejectment. The land in controversy was entered by William A. Stone. On the 22d day of April, 1865, it was sold for taxes under the revenue act then in force. The treasurer of the county executed a tax deed therefor on the 17th day of June 1867, and Sutton, who was the assignee of the purchaser and the owner of the tax title, went into possession. He afterwards sold to Young.
Read the full summary
Error to the district court of Johnson county. It was an action of ejectment. The land in controversy was entered by William A. Stone. On the 22d day of April, 1865, it was sold for taxes under the revenue act then in force. The treasurer of the county executed a tax deed therefor on the 17th day of June 1867, and Sutton, who was the assignee of the purchaser and the owner of the tax title, went into possession. He afterwards sold to Young. At the trial below the tax deed was offered in evidence, to which the plaintiff Stone objected, the objection was sustained and defendants excepted, and…
1Opinion of the Court
Lake, Ch. J.
The main question in this case, is whether of not the tax deed offered in evidence by the defendants in the court below should have been excluded from the jury.- This deed was the corner stone of the defense, and if we shall hold it to have been rightly excluded, all of the remaining testimony offered by the defendants was immaterial, and there was no error in excluding this also. It appears that the taxes were levied, the sale made, and the tax deed executed, under the provisions of the revenue law of February 15, 1861, which act, in substantially the same form, was re-enacted in…
2Cited by17 opinions
- Saybe v. SageSupreme Court of Colorado · 1910
- Lantry v. ParkerNebraska Supreme Court · 1893
- Matthews v. BlakeWyoming Supreme Court · 1907
- Reed v. MerriamNebraska Supreme Court · 1883
- Same v. SameNebraska Supreme Court · 1885
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.