Fitts v. Huff
Fitts v. Huff
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the court.
Upon the facts shown by this record the plaintiff should have judgment. The land was not redeemed. The effort of the defendant to redeem was ineffectual. The money sent for the purpose was not enough. The taxes of 1880 were then exigible, and their payment was necessary. It does not appear that any offer to redeem since the expiration of the year from the sale has been made, or that any tender of the required sum was ever made. Whether the former owner would be permitted to redeem after the year allowed for the exercise of that right, because of the misleading information given her by the auditor on the 9th of March, 1881, is not involved here. Upon the facts before us the plaintiff should have a recovery, and the defendant’s right to redeem upon payment of all proper charges on the land may be presented by a proper proceeding for that purpose.
Reversed and remanded for a new trial.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- W. A. Fitts v. C. P. Huff
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- 1. Tax-Title. Offer to redeem. Insufficient tender. Case in judgment. In March, 1880, the lands of H. were sold for the unpaid taxes of 1879. In August, 1880, II. wrote to the auditor for a statement of the amount required to redeem the lands. The auditor replied immediately, giving a statement of the taxes then due. In February, 1881, H. forwarded to the auditor the amount due as per the statement furnished her in August, 1880, but made no tender of the taxes then due for the year 1880. On March 9,1881, the auditor replied, returning the money, saying that the lands in question were not on the revised list of forfeited lands compiled in accordance with an act of the legislature approved March 5,1880, and that the State had no claim on them. In this the auditor was mistaken, the lands being on such list. In 1883 B. bought the lands from the State and conveyed them to F. in 1884. F. brought an action of ejectment against H. to recover such lands. Held, that F. is entitled to recover. H. not having tendered the full amount of taxes due, the attempt to redeem.was ineffectual. 2. Same. Offer to redeem. Mistake of auditor as to Staids ownership. Effect. Whether, in such case, the former owner would be permitted to redeem after the year allowed for the exercise of that right, because of the misleading information given by the auditor, quaere.