159 Iowa 228 | Iowa | 1913
John Reynolds, as plaintiff, brought this action. Since the beginning thereof he has died, and his heirs have been substituted as plaintiffs. For the purpose of the discussion we shall refer to liim as the plaintiff. The plain
The one ground of attack which is made by plaintiff upon the legal validity of the tax deed is that it was issued without notice to him. He contends that he was in possession, both at the time of the tax sale and at the time of serving of the notices of expiration, and that the tax deed was therefore improperly issued for want of notice to him as a party in possession. The trial court reached the Conclusion that the plaintiff was not in possession, and was not, therefore, entitled to notice under the statute. The trial court deemed the result regrettable, and expressed some unwillingness in relation thereto. We have given the evidence our best consideration, and likewise reach the conclusion with considerable reluctance that the finding must be adverse to the plaintiff at this point. The case of Rowland v. Brown, 75 Iowa, 679, is quite controlling at this point. If the plaintiff could escape from this net, it is doubtful whether he has made sufficient proof of title to satisfy the requirements of section 1M5 of the Code. The result is that the Western Securities Company, defendant, takes by statutory right property to the value of $700 for the pittance of a delinquent tax, and this without actual notice to the resident owner of the property.
We feel constrained to suggest for legislative considera
The order of the trial court must be Affirmed.