64 P. 988 | Kan. | 1901
The opinion of the court was delivered by
In September, 1889, the Sioux Investment Company purchased a tax certificate on the real estate in controversy. Afterward, and in October fol
We think the taxes paid by Hutchens were a lien on the land, and that an action to quiet title could not be maintained without a payment of the amount, with the legal interest and costs. The only reason for denying plaintiff in error a repayment of the taxes is the fact that the certificate was not assigned on the treasurer’s books and the clerk’s duplicate. There is no claim that the taxes were not a legal charge on the land, and the only defense against their payment rests on the technical objection that there was no assignment of the certificate of record. At the time the defendant in error bought the land the treasurer’s record showed the existence of this tax lien. The tax certificate was effectively transferred by a written assignment indorsed on or attached to the same. (Gen. Stat. 1901, §7648.)
A quitclaim deed from a purchaser of land at a tax sale is not such an assignment of the certificate of purchase as to authorize the clerk to issue a deed to
The judgment of the district court will be reversed, with directions to enter judgment in favor of plaintiff in error for the amount of taxes paid, with interest and costs.