White v. Flynn
Cases that cite this one
16 later published cases cite this decision.
- Gradison v. Logan (Ind. Ct. App. 1963)
- Little v. RITCHEY (Ind. 1961)
- Rich Hill Coal Company v. Bashore (Pa. 1939)
- O'Donnell v. Wells (Mo. 1929)
- State ex rel. Columbia Telephone Co. v. Atkinson (Mo. 1917)
- Taylor v. Anderson (Okla. 1914)
- Nind v. Myers (N.D. 1906)
- People ex rel. Hillel Lodge No. 72 v. Rose (Ill. 1904)
- Baltimore & Ohio Southwestern Railway Co. v. Reed (Ind. 1902)
- Larson v. Dickey (Neb. 1894)
- Board of Commissioners v. State ex rel. Michener (Ind. 1889)
- Heagy v. State ex rel. Forkner (Ind. 1882)
- Forster v. Forster (Mass. 1880)
- Hunter v. Burnsville Turnpike Co. (Ind. 1877)
- Dale v. Frisbie (Ind. 1877)
- Schenck v. Peay (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Arkansas 1869)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
In this snit, the defendant sought to hold lands by virtue of a tax title. He relied on his tax deed. The court seems to have held it conclusive evidence of title under the recitation in the deed thus: “ And it appearing from the records of said county auditor’s office that the aforesaid lands were legally liable for taxation, and had been duly assessed and properly charged on the duplicate,” etc. See 1 G-. & H. 108, 109.
The statute enacts that the deed shall be conclusive evidence of the facts recited, etc. Now, we do not suppose the legislature could make such an enactment. See Wantlan v. White, 19 Ind. 470. But, supposing they could, the recitation quoted is only of the fact that it appears on the records of the auditor’s office that certain things had been done, etc., all which might be true, and yet not be true, that those things had, in fact, been done. Nor would it be within the scope of the powers of those officers to recite that such things, in fact, had been done. The recitals in deed must be within the scope of the powers of the officers making them. The plaintiff replied that there was personal property on the lands that was not called for, etc., to pay the taxes, etc.
The court held this could not affect the validity of the title. The rulings of the court below were wrong. See Gavin v. Shuman et al., at this term, and 1 Selden (N. Y.) R. 366; also, 14 Ind. 465.
The judgment is reversed with costs. Cause remanded.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.