89 Mo. 464 | Mo. | 1886
This was originally á suit in ejectment in which John Atkison sued Lewis and Elizabeth Dixon for possession of the lot of ground in controversy. -On a trial,' plaintiff had judgment, which, on appeal to
It seems that there was evidence conducing to prove that the houses were erected under an agreement between Dixon and the tenants, that they might be removed at the expiration of the tenancy, and that R. A. Atkison had purchased of the tenants their interest therein. On his petition, the court found that the houses were personal property and belonged to R. A. Atkison, and that within a reasonable time he might remove them, but that he was not entitled to the possession of the lot. The court also heard evidence as to the nature of the ground rent during the time R. A. Atkison occupied the lot, and found that it amounted to $1,408, for which it rendered a judgment against him, and thirty dollars per month until he moved his houses, giving him until the first of March, 1883, to remove them. Prom this judgment he has appealed.
With regard to his alleged paramount title,if he had ■one, that was not affected by the judgment in the ejectment suit to which he was no party. He was, however, bound by that judgment, so far as the title he derived from
Under his title, whether good or bad, he claimed a paramount title to, and possession of the land, and the only question left for consideration is whether holding a quit claim deed for the lot from R. A. Atkison, but not getting possession from him under that deed, he could take an assignment of the certificate of purchase from the purchaser at the tax sale, and a deed from the sheriff, and thereby acquire a distinct title, independent of that he acquired from John Atkison, or must he be held to occupy the position of an owner who redeems his land from taxes, or purchases his own land at a tax sale ? Judge Cooley, in his work on Taxation, says : “There are some cases in which it has been distinctly held that possession, when the tax was assessed, fixed upon the possessor the duty to pay and precluded his becoming a
The case at bar, however, is not such a case. R. A. Atkison was never in possession until after he acquired the tax title. He was not the purchaser at the tax sale, but the assignee of the purchaser. He acquired no interest or title by his quit-claim deed, for in the very suit in which he intervened, it was decided that Mrs. Dixon was entitled to the land. But, Judge Cooley says of the line of cases above alluded to, that “it is deserving of more consideration whether where parties stand to each other in the position of adverse claimant to land, either of them can insist that the other shall discharge a duty to the government for his protection.” Page 350. Again ,he says: “ It is difficult to dispute the truth of what is said by the supreme court of Pennsylvania that ‘ there is nothing in reason or law to prevent a man who holds a •defective title from purchasing a better at a treasurer’s sale for taxes.’ ” Cox v. Gibson, 27 Pa. St. 160-165. There was here no obligation upon R. A. Atkison to pay the taxes for which the land was sold. He had neither the title nor possession to the land, nor is there any evidence that he claimed under his quit-claim deed — and even admitting the cases criticised by Judge Cooley to assert the true doctrine, they widely differ from the case at bar in the facts as above indicated. In Blackwood v. Van Vleet, 30 Mich. 118, the court held that “to preclude any person from making and relying upon a purchase of lands at a tax sale, there must be something in the circumstances of the case which imposes upon him a duty to the state to pay the tax or something which renders it inequitable, as between himself and the holder of the existing title, that he should make the purchase.”