82 Kan. 354 | Kan. | 1910
The tax deed in this case being valid, the judgment must be affirmed without reference to the other questions raised.
There is no similarity between this case and that of
Another objection to the deed is that the compromise resolution had lost its force and had become dormant at the time the money was paid and the assignment executed. The deed, being more than five years old, is entitled to every presumption in its favor. There is nothing showing that the.board had revoked its authority, and the presumption is that the order was made without any condition requiring it to be accepted within a certain time. The original owner could not have been prejudiced by the order remaining open from October to the following June; he had that much more time within which to compromise the tax himself if he desired.
The judgment is affirmed.