Skip to content

Taylor v. Deveaux

Alfred K. Taylor v. Peter F. Deveaux and Josephine Deveaux

Taylor v. Deveaux, 59 N.W. 250 (Mich. 1894)

Court: Michigan Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided: June 2, 1894
Judges: Hooker, Other
Citations: 59 N.W. 250100 Mich. 5811894 Mich. LEXIS 858
Disposition: Affirmed.

Cited by 15

Headnotes

Taxes — Validity of deed — Subpoena— Jurisdiction— Conclusiveness of deed. Plaintiff brought ejectment, basing his right to recover upon a tax deed,for the year 1887. The defendants are husband and wife, and resided upon the land, which was owned by the wife, but assessed to the husband, upon whom alone the subpoena, issued upon the filing of the Auditor General’s petition, was served. The wife did not appear. And it is held’: a — -That the court obtained no jurisdiction as to the wife, and the deed is therefore void as against her; citing Fowler v. Campbell, ante, 398. b — That the Legislature has attempted to have questions in regard to the validity of taxes settled before sale, by an adjudication in a judicial proceeding, and that the first requisite is jurisdiction of the person to be bound by the decree. c — That section 67 of the tax law of 1889 (3 How. Stat. § 1170g6), which provides that the deeds issued by the Auditor General “shall convey an absolute title to the land sold, and be conclusive evidence of title in fee in the grantee, subject, however, to all taxes assessed and levied on such land subsequent to the taxes for which the same was bid off, and the deed shall so state,” of necessity determines the nature of the title conveyed by a valid sale and deed, and that it is not within the power of the Legislature to deny the right to defend title against a tax deed.1

Summary

Error to Saginaw. (Gage, J.) Argued April 12, 1894. Decided June 2, 1894. Ejectment. Plaintiff brings error. The facts are stated in the opinion.

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

Opinion of the Court — Hooker

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Hooker, J.

Plaintiff brought ejectment, basing his right to recover upon tax deeds for the 'years 1886 and 1887. The court directed a verdict for the defendants, and the plaintiff brings error. The deed for the year 1886 is not relied upon.

The defendants resided upon the premises, which belonged to Josephine Deveaux, as the record showed. They were assessed to Peter F. Deveaux, and the subpoena, upon the Auditor General's petition, issued to and was served upon him,- and not upon Josephine Deveaux, who did not appear. •

The court obtained no jurisdiction, and the deed was therefore void against her. Fowler v. Campbell, ante, 398, covers this question.

It is contended that the deed is conclusive evidence of title in fee in the grantee. 3 How. Stat. § 1170<?6, provides that “such deeds shall convey an absolute title to the land sold, and be conclusive evidence of title in fee in the grantee.” A case cited holds that a similar statute of Wisconsin could be given effect as a statute of limitation. Smith v. Cleveland, 17 Wis. 566 . We do not find this decision followed. Under our tax law the Legislature has attempted to have questions in regard to the validity of taxes settled before sale, by an adjudication. The proceeding is a judicial one, and the first requisite is jurisdiction of the person to be bound by the decree. We *583 cannot believe that it was the intention of the Legislature ^o require judicial proceedings involving personal service of a subpoena for their foundation, and at the same time provide that delivery of a deed under the decree shall effectually conclude the owner, whether the court acquired jurisdiction or not. The statute, of necessity, determines the nature of the title conveyed by a valid sale and deed, viz., an abáolute title in fee, subject to subsequent taxes. It is not within the power of the Legislature to deny the right to defend title against a tax deed. Blackw. Tax Titles, §§ 78-80; Cooley, Const. Lim. (6th ed.) 452. We think it much more consistent to hold that the legislative intent was that the deed should be evidence of title in fee-simple, after the right to give the deed had been shown, by proof of a valid decree. Cooley, Tax’n, p. 355,. and cases cited.

The judgment will be affirmed.

The other Justices concurred.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 15 cases

View all citing references →

State Highest Courts15

Relies on it most ⓘ

Tromble v. Hoffman90 N.W. 694 (Mich. 1902)
Dawson v. Peter77 N.W. 997 (Mich. 1899)
Morrison v. Semer129 N.W. 1 (Mich. 1910)
Nowlen v. Hall87 N.W. 222 (Mich. 1901)
Wilson v. Locke111 P. 247 (Idaho 1910)
Vincent v. Evans127 N.W. 760 (Mich. 1910)

Most recent

Smith v. Dickerson297 P. 402 (Idaho 1931)
Patrons' Mutual Fire Insurance v. Butler160 N.W. 402 (Mich. 1916)
B. Siegel Co. v. Wayne Circuit Judge149 N.W. 1015 (Mich. 1914)
Mutual Security Co. v. Sidney Blumenthal & Co.86 A. 573 (Conn. 1913)
Titus v. Chippewa Circuit Judge134 N.W. 487 (Mich. 1912)
Morrison v. Semer129 N.W. 1 (Mich. 1910)

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 1

Depth	Case	Cited by
	Smith v. Cleveland, 17 Wis. 556 (1863)	34