Legal Opinion · Dissent

Hadlock v. Benjamin Drainage Dist.

Utah Supreme Court

Decided January 31, 1936No. 5375Published

1DissentWolfe, Justice

I dissent. I think that the quitclaim deed from Utah county erased the lien of the drainage district for taxes in favor of the insolvent bank. The bank is not in the same position as the former owner of the land who owed the taxes. It was the mortgagee. It certainly should have the same rights as any other person not connected with the former title. The reason that an owner who has the duty to pay taxes cannot assert that he is a new owner after purchase from the county as against lienholders or others interested in the property is because of the rule of estoppel. Any one who purchases from…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Riley v. Bank of Commerce of RoswellNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1933
  2. Columbia Trust Co. v. NielsonUtah Supreme Court · 1930

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API