TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Perry v. Snyder

PERRY v. SNYDER Et Al.

Perry v. Snyder, 1919 OK 140, 181 P. 147
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Oklahoma · State Highest Courts
Decided
May 3, 1919
Docket
No. 8565
Judges
Hardy
Citations
181 P. 1471919 OK 14075 Okla. 241919 Okla. LEXIS 12
Disposition
Reversed and remanded with directions to enter judgment for defendant.
Syllabus
(Syllabus by the Court.) 1, Taxation — Tax Sale — Tax Deed — Validity. A sale of land for delinquent taxes at a time not authorized by statute is void, and a tax deed based thereon is a nullity. 2. Judgment — Title of Plaintiff — Default Judgment — Reversal. Where a petition in ejectment shows on its face that plaintiff has no title to the premises sued for, a judgment by default in plaintiff’s favor is erroneous, and will be re-, versed. 3. Appeal and Error — Sufficiency of Petition — Objection. An objection that a petition does not state a cause of action may be urged for the first time on appeal. 4. Taxation — Invalid Tax Deed — Grantee’s Action for Possession — Payment of Taxes. Where a tax deed is void, it is not necessary to pay or tender the taxes, interest, and costs which have been paid by the grantee in said deed in order to defeat an action by such purchaser for possession of the property described therein.
Summary
Error from District Court, Pontotoc County; George C. Crump, Assigned Judge. Ejectment by H. R. Snyder against Elizabeth Perry and others. Demurrer to amended answer sustained, and default judgment for plaintiff, and defendant Elizabeth Perry brings error.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Hardy

HARDY, C. J.

H. R. Snyder sued Elizabeth Perry and others in ejectment for certain lands in Pontotoc county. Demurrer was sustained to defendant’s amended answer, after which defendants were adjudged to be in default, and judgment was rendered for plaintiff and defendant Elizabeth Perry prosecutes error.

Plaintiff claims title to the premises by virtue of a tax deed issued to him by the county treasurer of Pontotoc county, bearing date of July 23, 1914. The deed is attached to and made a part of the petition. It appears from the recitals in the face of the deed that the premises were sold on September 6, 1910. By section 4, c. 73, Sess. Laws 1910, which went into effect June 17, 1910 (Rev. Laws 1910, sec. 7398), it is .provided that tax sales shall commence on the first Monday in November in each year between the hours of 9 o’clock a. m. and 4 o’clock p. m., and 'be continued from day to day between the same hours until all the lands subject to taxation upon which taxes remain unpaid shall be sold. The sale in the case at bar was at a time not provided by statute, and was therefore unauthorized, and said sale and the deed based thereon were void. Holt v. Spicer, 65 Oklahoma, 162 Pac. 686 ; Blaine Co. Bank et al. v. Noble et al., 55 Okla. 361 , 155 Pac. 532 .

The petition showed on its face that the deed under which plaintiff claimed was void, and therefore conveyed no interest in or title to the premises therein described. Spalding v. Hill, 47 Okla. 621 , 149 Pac. 1133 . The petition, 0therefore, failed to state a cause of action in favor of plaintiff and the judgment by default in plaintiff’s favor was erroneous, and will be reversed. Clark v. Holmes, 31 Okla. 164 , 120 Pac. 642 , Ann. Cas. 1913D, 385.

An objection that the petition does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action is not waived by failing to urge such objection in the trial court, but may be urged for the first time in the Supreme Court. ‘ Section 4742, Rev. Laws 1910 ; Zahn v. Obert, 60 Okla. 118 , 159 Pac. 298 .

Defendant was not required to pay or tender the taxes, interest, and costs which had been paid by plaintiff in order to defeat his action, because the deed under which plaintiff claimed was void. Davenport et al. v. Doyle, 57 Okla. 341 , 157 Pac. 110 ; Holt v. Spicer, 65 Oklahoma, 162 Pac. 686 .

The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded, with directions to enter judgment for defendant.

All the Justices concur.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 16 cases

View all citing references →
1922: 11923: 21925: 11928: 31932: 31935: 11938: 11944: 11946: 11948: 12020: 119222026peak 1928 · 3

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT 52 v. HOFMEISTER2020 OK 56
  2. Schulte v. Herndon1938 OK 531, 84 P.2d 607
  3. Cherry v. Crown Hill Cemetery Trust1948 OK 60, 191 P.2d 591 · Concurrence
  4. Gulager v. Coon1923 OK 621, 218 P. 701
  5. Commercial Investment Trust v. Ferguson1923 OK 1070, 220 P. 925
  6. Settle v. Frakes1932 OK 132, 9 P.2d 768

Most recent

  1. INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT 52 v. HOFMEISTER2020 OK 56
  2. Cherry v. Crown Hill Cemetery Trust1948 OK 60, 191 P.2d 591 · Concurrence
  3. Kincannon v. Irwin169 P.2d 861 (Ariz. 1946)
  4. Wetzel v. Evans1944 OK 148, 147 P.2d 133
  5. Schulte v. Herndon1938 OK 531, 84 P.2d 607
  6. Transcontinental Ins. Co. v. Hollingsworth1935 OK 962, 50 P.2d 200

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 6

DepthCaseCited by
Zahn v. Obert, 1916 OK 754, 159 P. 298 29
Clark v. Holmes, 1912 OK 18, 120 P. 642 21
Davenport v. Doyle, 1916 OK 453, 157 P. 110 21
Holt v. Spicer, 1916 OK 1005, 162 P. 686 16
Blaine Cnty. Bank v. Noble, 1916 OK 176, 155 P. 532 15
Spalding v. Hill, 1915 OK 474, 149 P. 1133 8

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list