Bismarck daily tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1881-1916, 1907-06-26
'tate Finance Co.. Respondent.

/ % n ~
w. 3. s. Trimbie, ct al, Appellants.
The mere fact that a grantee OF
a deed Of vacant land examined the
records of the register of deeds of.
flee before purchasing the land and
thereby discovered defects in defend
ants title does not render the deed
void for maintainence.
The fact that portions of blank
certificate Of sale of land for taxes
under Chap. Ct, Laws of 1897, which
applied to sale under different con-
ditions are not erased before deIiv-
cry, does not render such certificate
void on its face.
The fact that the sheriff sold land
for delinquent taxes under the or
iginal judgment and not under GER
titled copy thereof is not jurisdic-
tional defect that renders the sale
void. III s
A void tax deed is not evidence o
tax sale or of the existence of a
tax. q
A court Of equity will not require
the payment of taxes as a condition
of relief from deed where there has
been no assessment forsWant of a suf-
ficient description Of the land. a.,
there has been a valid ass
essment and levy and there exists
no other jurisdIctional defect, equity
will require payment Of the tax be-
fore relief will be decreed. s
Notice %of the expiration of the
time for a redemption under sale
under the Woods Law" is INSULT
Gent when it enormously describes
the land and does not clearly APP
praise the owner that his land has
been sold and that the time for re-
demption is about to expire.
Various descriptions Of land in as
sessment rolls and notices consid-
cred and their sufficfency passed up
on. z39R8 RI ~
!. Appeal from the district court Of
stutsman county; Hon. S. =. Glas-
pell. Judge.
NJ. Conklin; +. G. . Kneeland for.
appellants. s5. s.:= a @.s
John Knauf; Wicks, Paige & Lamb
for respondent u u 5sy n,
Judgment modified and affirmed. 4
Opinion by Morgan, G. y. All CON
cur.
State Finance Co, Respondent,
y. Mulberger, ct all, defendants, and
w. Il. Beck and vaieria r. Myers,
Appellants. s
81 A certificate Of sale Of land for the
taxes of 1895, which. is void for ir-
regularity in the description Of the
land is not any evidence Of assess
ment and levy Of a tax. a
A description Of the land assess
ed is essential to a valid tax and un-
less there Is such a description there
is no assessment and consequently
no tax. 5l t vi 's
Notices OF tax sales and notices
of the time when redemption will
expire must describe the land invol-
we'd In the tax and such notices are
not effectual without such descrip-
| tfon.
a tax deed issued In 1898 In the
name Of county and not in the
name Of the state Is void.
Service Of notice OF the time when
the period for redepmtion from q
tax sale will expire on the holder
OF q void tax deed as owner, is not
enectual for any purpose.
Various descriptions Of land In as.
sessments, notices Of sale and notices
of expiration Of redemption period
considered and their sufriciency pass.
led upon. 55s Sc
Appeal from the district court Of
stutsman county; Hon, s. r. Glas-
pell Judge. vs. Y IS
"a. conklin; +. q. Kneeland for
appellants.
+ John Knauf; Wicks, Paige s. Lamp
for respondent.
Judgment modified and affirmed.
Opinion BY Judge Morgan, G. j.
All concur