Case ID: wis_124/html/0398-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "SiebecKER, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Pier, Respondent, vs. Oneida County and others, Respondents: Doolittle, Appellant.
    
      February 21
    
    March 14, 1905.
    
    
      Judgment: Vacating: Right of a person not a party.
    
    After judgment establishing the mutual rights of the parties in an action against a county to annul tax certificates on plaintiff’s lands, the owner of a portion of such certificates, not being a party to the action nor seeking to be made a party nor showing that the county is a mere nominal party and he the real party in interest, has no right to have the judgment vacated on his motion.
    Appeal from au order of the circuit court for Oneida •county: W. 0. Silvebti-iobn, Oircuit Judge.
    
      Affirmed.
    
    This action was brought in March, 1903, against Oneida ■county, its treasurer and clerk, to set aside the assessment of taxes for 1901 upon certain lands in the county owned by the •plaintiff, and to annul the tax certificates issued for delinquent taxes thereon. Judgment without costs to either party was entered on March 16, 1903, upon the facts as stipulated by the parties. By this judgment the tax certificates issued by the county on account of such delinquent taxes were annulled, that portion of the tax found to be equitably due the county as a proper tax upon the lands was ordered paid by the plaintiff, and the county clerk and his successors in office were restrained from issuing tax deeds upon the outstanding certificates based upon the unpaid taxes originally assessed.
    On the 2lth of the succeeding November, appellant, who is not a party to this action, made application to the court and showed that he was the owner of a portion of the certificates against the lands of plaintiff covered by the judgment, and which had been issued by Oneida county at the sale for delinquent taxes in May, 1903. He moved the court to vacate the judgment. After a hearing on this motion the court refused to make such an order, and this is an appeal from the action of the court denying the application.
    For the appellant the cause was submitted on a brief by L. A. Doolittle.
    
    For the respondents there was a brief signed by John Barnes, of .counsel, for the plaintiff, and Sam S. Miller, district attorney of Oneida county; and the cause was ar^gued orally by Mr. Barnes.
    
   SiebecKER, J.

Appellant is not a party to this action, nor does he now seek to be made a party. He applied to the court to have the judgment vacated upon the ground that, as owner of tax certificates issued by the county for delinquent taxes on the lands involved, his interests therein are adversely affected by the judgment. Under the facts stated he is a stranger to the action. It is well settled that a stranger to an action has no right to disturb a judgment by a motion to vacate it without first having obtained the status of a party, unless it appears that the party of record is merely a nominal party and tbe party so moving tbe court is tbe real party in interest. Under such circumstances be may be treated as having tbe standing of a party to tbe action and as having control of tbe same. Ætna Ins. Co. v. Aldrich, 38 Wis. 107.

It, however, does not appear but that tbe county is tbe real party in interest in this case, nor does it appear that appellant’s legal rights as certificate bolder have been determined, nor could they be in tbe absence of bis being made a party to tbe action. If appellant were allowed to interpose and assume tbe control of tbe action after judgment under these circumstances, it would result in an invasion of the rights of tbe parties who have prosecuted tbe cause to a final judgment which establishes their mutual rights in this controversy. Appellant’s application to vacate this judgment is not well founded in tbe law and was properly denied by tbe trial court. Tbe following authorities in this court sustain this ruling: Ward v. Clark, 6 Wis. 509; Packard v. Smith, 9 Wis. 184; Ætna Ins. Co. v. Aldrich, 38 Wis. 107.

By the Court. — Tbe order appealed from is affirmed.