Bowman v. Eckstien
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Hamilton Gvrouit Gowrt. . It is averred in the petition that on the 3d day of October, 1870, the defendant, as treasurer of Hamilton county, sold forty acres of land to one Estes, for the delinquent taxes of 1869; that subsequently said Estes, for a valuable consideration, assigned the certificate of purchase to the plaintiffs; ■ that more than three years have elapsed since said sale, and these plaintiffs are entitled to a treasurer’s deed for said land; that…
Read the full summary
Appeal from Hamilton Gvrouit Gowrt. . It is averred in the petition that on the 3d day of October, 1870, the defendant, as treasurer of Hamilton county, sold forty acres of land to one Estes, for the delinquent taxes of 1869; that subsequently said Estes, for a valuable consideration, assigned the certificate of purchase to the plaintiffs; ■ that more than three years have elapsed since said sale, and these plaintiffs are entitled to a treasurer’s deed for said land; that plaintiffs have tendered to defendant the lawful fee for such deed, and offered to return the certificate of purchase,…
1Dissent
Adams, J.,
dissenting. — The defendant, the treasurer of 'Hamilton county, refuses to execute to the plaintiffs, the •holders of a tax certificate, a tax deed, as called for by the ■certificate. The reason for such refusal seems to be based •upon two grounds: First. There was a subsequent sale of ' the land for taxes to one Everts; and, second, the plaintiffs ■have acquired the patent title to the land. In my opinion, ^neither of these reasons is sufficient to justify the treasurer •in withholding the deed.
’ As to the' sale to Everts it may be said that for anything ■which the record shows the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Smith v. KnightSupreme Court of Iowa · 1893
- Shoemaker v. LacySupreme Court of Iowa · 1877