Barnard v. Hoyt
Illinois Supreme Court
Barnard v. Hoyt, 63 Ill. 341 (Ill. 1872)
Cueiam
Barnard v. Hoyt
Opinion of the Court
This case does not differ in principle from Gage v. Rohrbach, 56 Ill. 262, Same v. Billings, ibid. 268, and Reed v. Tyler, ibid. 288. It was there held that a court of chancery might interfere in behalf of a party in possession, to remove the cloud occasioned by an invalid tax sale under which title was claimed. In this case notice of the sale was not given in the manner required by the constitution and by the statute.
The decree is affirmed.
Decree affirmed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Francis Barnard v. Edwin Hoyt
- Cited By
- 3 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- 1. Cloud upon title—tax deed—jurisdiction in chancery. It has been held that equity will entertain, in behalf of a party in possession of land, a bill to remove a cloud upon his title occasioned by an invalid tax sale and a deed thereunder. Such jurisdiction will also be entertained in behalf of the owner, when the lands are vacant and unoccupied. 2. Tax title—necessity of notice to the party in whose name the land was assessed. A tax deed executed in the year 1864 without the written notice served upon the party to whom the land was assessed, who resided in the county where the land was situate, as was required by the constitution and statute, was regarded as void and inoperative to convey title, and this even though the party in whose name the land was assessed never had or claimed any interest in the premises, and the same were vacant and unoccupied, and though the grantee in the deed had caused to be inserted in a newspaper published in the county, three several times, the last insertion three months before the time of redemption expired, a notice stating the time when he purchased, with a correct description of the land and the time when the redemption would expire.