No. 12,494 | Neb. | Feb 17, 1903
This action was brought by Gallentine against Blanche Fullerton and others to foreclose a tax lien upon real estate in Buffalo county. The answer of defendants is a general denial, coupled with a plea of the statute of limi
The first contention is that the tax sale was illegal, and that the court, therefore, erred in allowing interest for two1 years at the rate of 20 per cent, and an attorney fee equal to 10 per cent, of the amount of the decree. The plaintiff purchased the land in question at private tax sale, and there is in the record no evidence tending to show that the county treasurer had previously made and filed with the county clerk the report required by section lid of the revenue law. It was held as far back as State v. Helmer, 10 Nebr., 25, that the treasurer is without authority to sell at private sale until such report has been made and filed; and this decision has been repeatedly approved. Stegeman v. Faulkner, 42 Nebr., 53; Adams v. Osgood, 42 Nebr., 450; Medland v. Linton, 60 Nebr., 249; Johnson v. Finley, 54 Nebr., 733. But the lax-sale certificate is presumptive evidence of the regularity of all proceedings prior to the sale (sec. 116, ch. 77, art. 1, Compiled Statutes) ; and this presumption is not overborne by the proof in this case. The fact that the treasurer’s report was not found in the office of the county clerk, is, in Anew of the character of the search and the manner in which the records had been kept, without aa-eight or value as evidence.
It is said that there is no proof of the payment of subsequent taxes, but Ave think there is. The deputy treasurer testified AAithout, objection, from the records of his office, that “under the sale” to plaintiff subsequent taxes amounting to $14.85 had been paid. Evidently the idea the AAotness intended to convey Avas that these taxes had been paid by the holder of the tax-sale certificate.
The argument in support of the contention that the right to maintain an action for the foreclosure of a tax lien is barred at the expiration of five years from the date of the tax-sale certificate is logical and convincing, but it comes too late. The meaning of section 179, and section 2, article 5, of the revenue law, as unfolded in a series of
The judgment is
Affirmed.