King v. Nilson

The tax deed in this case being valid, the judgment must be affirmed without reference to the other questions raised.

There is no similarity between this case and that of *355Lanning v. Brown, 79 Kan. 103, which is relied upon by the plaintiff. There the deed recited on its face that the order of the board authorizing the assignment required the payment of taxes which were not at the time a lien upon the land. This deed, on the contrary, shows that the taxes of 1900 were not included in the order of compromise, although they were paid on June 27, 1901, when the certificate was actually assigned;…