TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Kneeland v. Hyman

Kneeland v. Hyman, 76 N.W. 127 (Mich. 1898)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Michigan Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
July 18, 1898
Judges
Grant, Other
Citations
76 N.W. 127118 Mich. 561898 Mich. LEXIS 952
Disposition
Reversed.
Cited by 7
Headnotes
Tax Sales — Validity—Collateral Attack — Attempted Payment — Remedies—Quieting Title. The owner of land which has been sold for taxes cannot attack the decree of sale in a collateral proceeding on the ground that he was prevented from paying the tax by the conduct of the collecting officer, but, as held in Kneeland v. Wood, 117 Mich. 174, he must in such case resort to one of the remedies prescribed by sections 70 and 98 of the tax law (Act No. 206, Pub. Acts 1893). Where, however, instead of pursuing such course, a landowner sought to set up an attempted payment as a defense in a suit to quiet title brought by the holder of the tax deed, entry of decree was deferred, and defendant ■ given a reasonable time within which to avail himself of the statute.
Summary
Appeal from Grand Traverse; Corbett,- J. Bill by Fred A,. Kneeland and John H. Cole against Herman Hyman to quiet title. From a decree dismissing the bill, complainants appeal. Complainants are the owners of a tax title ,to the land described in the bill of complaint, under a decree duly entered for the delinquent taxes of 1893 and the sale thereunder, having obtained the tax deed March 10, 1897. Defendant was the original owner. The land is wild and unoccupied. The bill sets up the deed under which the defendant derived his title, alleges that it is a cloud upon complainants’ title, and prays for a decree that the title of complainants he declared paramount to that of the defendant. The answer alleges payment of the tax in due time. The court found that the taxes were not paid, but that defendant, in March, 1895, applied to the county treasurer to pay all the delinquent taxes upon the land; that the treasurer informed him that there were no taxes due for the year 1893; that the taxes were unpaid for 1894; and that defendant paid them. The payment of the 1894 tax is conceded. The court, upon the hearing, permitted defendant to amend his answer by setting up the latter defense.

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

Opinion of the Court — Grant

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

Grant, C. J.

(after stating the facts). We pointed out in Kneeland v. Wood, 117 Mich. 174 , the two remedies provided by the statute in case of payment, or where the owner has been misled by the statement of the col *58 lector. That was an action of ejectment, and we held that a collateral attack upon a decree rendered in a tax suit cduld not be made, but that the owner must resort to one of these two remedies. If he could not make a collateral attack at law, for the same reason he cannot make it in equity. Defendant should have availed himself of one of the above remedies.

Instead of resorting to the action of ejectment, complainants have chosen to go into a court of equity. It is the province of that court to protect the rights of all parties, and do justice between them, when it can be done. It is not only inequitable, but unjust, that a person should lose his land when he has made an honest effort to pay the tax, and has been misled by the statement of the officer, on which he had the right to rely. The law does not contemplate such a result. The case of Kneeland v. Wood had not been decided when this suit was heard. Undoubtedly counsel advised that the defense could be made in this suit. We think it equitable and just that the defendant should be giveh an opportunity to avail himself of either of the above remedies, should he see fit to do so.

The decree will therefore be reversed, and the case remanded, and 90 days given to the defendant within which to avail himself of the statute. The complainants will recover the costs of both courts.

The other Justices concurred.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 7 cases

View all citing references →
1899: 11903: 11904: 11905: 11906: 11943: 11961: 118992026peak 1899 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Cole v. Auditor General93 N.W. 890 (Mich. 1903)
  2. Hoffman v. Auditor General100 N.W. 180 (Mich. 1904)
  3. Mann v. Carson79 N.W. 941 (Mich. 1899)
  4. Jakobowski v. Auditor General107 N.W. 722 (Mich. 1906)
  5. In re Appropriation of Easements of Hulbert176 N.E.2d 881 (Oh. Ct. Com. Pl., Ashtabula 1961)
  6. Goldsboro v. Lucas12 N.W.2d 321 (Mich. 1943)

Most recent

  1. In re Appropriation of Easements of Hulbert176 N.E.2d 881 (Oh. Ct. Com. Pl., Ashtabula 1961)
  2. Goldsboro v. Lucas12 N.W.2d 321 (Mich. 1943)
  3. Jakobowski v. Auditor General107 N.W. 722 (Mich. 1906)
  4. Bullock v. Auditor General105 N.W. 542 (Mich. 1905)
  5. Hoffman v. Auditor General100 N.W. 180 (Mich. 1904)
  6. Cole v. Auditor General93 N.W. 890 (Mich. 1903)

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

DepthCaseCited by
Kneeland v. Wood, 75 N.W. 461 (Mich. 1898) 21

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