Kellogg v. Maloney
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Western District of Washington. The plaintiff in error was plaintiff in the court below in an action of ejectment; the complaint alleging, among other things, that on and prior to February 29, 1904, the plaintiff and his then wife, Mary Tennessee Kellogg, were the owners as community property, seised in fee and in possession, and entitled to the possession as community property, of the lots of land in controversy, to…
Read the full summary
In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Western District of Washington. The plaintiff in error was plaintiff in the court below in an action of ejectment; the complaint alleging, among other things, that on and prior to February 29, 1904, the plaintiff and his then wife, Mary Tennessee Kellogg, were the owners as community property, seised in fee and in possession, and entitled to the possession as community property, of the lots of land in controversy, to wit, lots numbered 15 and 16, in block numbered 35, of Railroad addition in Oentralia, Lewis county, Wash.; that while…
1Opinion of the CourtRoss, Circuit Judge
The point relied upon by the plaintiff in error as ground for a reversal of the judgment of the court below is that the proceedings under the statute of the state of Washington, culminating in the tax deed under which the defendants in error hold and claim, were all void. That, manifestly, depends upon a proper interpretation of the statutes of that state; and, inasmuch as the plaintiff in error appeared in the suit brought in the state court to enforce the alleged lien for taxes and moved that court to quash the summons issued therein, for the reason that the proper foundation for the…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Dowell v. ApplegateSupreme Court of the United States · 1894
- Baisley v. BaisleySupreme Court of Missouri · 1893
- Sharon v. HillUnited States Circuit Court · 1885
- White v. Fresno National BankCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
3Cited by1 opinion
- Hohl v. LloydCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1910