Case Name: Thomas S. Krutz, et al., v. George B. Chandler
Court: Kansas Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Kansas
Decision Date: 1884-07
Citations: 32 Kan. 659
Docket Number: 
Parties: Thomas S. Krutz, et al., v. George B. Chandler.
Judges: All the Justices concurring.
Reporter: Kansas Reports
Volume: 32
Pages: 659–662

Head Matter:
Thomas S. Krutz, et al., v. George B. Chandler.
1. Taxes, Adjudged a Lien — No Error. In an action in the nature of ejectment, brought by the holder of a tax deed where the plaintiff failed to recover the land, but where the court adjudged the amount of tho taxes, with all legal interest and costs thereon paid by the plaintiff to be a lien upon the land, held, that the j udgement, under the circumstances, is not erroneous, although (I) the description of the land in the tax deed and tax proceedings is indefinite and uncertain; (2) the assessor did not attach an oath to his return of the assessment of real property; and (3) a greater amouñt was charged for publishing the delinquent tax list than was paid.
2. Indefinite Description — Lien for Taxes; No Error'. Where a person owns and is in the actual possession of 146 and acres of land in a certain quarter-section, and the the same is assessed and taxed to him and in his name, but by the following description, to-wit: “Pt. S.W. ( 146t%% a.) section 4, township 17, range 23, in Miami county,” and the land is not assessed or taxed by any other description, and the owner never pays any taxes for that year on the land, and the land is afterward sold for the taxes and the purchaser pays the subsequent taxes, and afterward a tax deed is executed to the purchaser, and afterward in an action in the nature of ejectment brought by the purchaser to recover the land, the purchaser is defeated with reference to the recovery of the land, but the court adjudges the taxes, with the legal interest and costs thereon paid by the purchaser to be a lien upon the land, held, that notwithstanding the indefinite description of the land, the owner thereof is not relieved from paying his taxes, and the judgment of the court with regard to the lien for taxes is not erroneous.
Error from Miami District Court.
Ejectment brought by Chandler against Krutz and two others. Trial by the court at the February Term, 1884. The court found and adjudged that—
“The defendant, William G. Krutz, is the owner of the land described in the petition of the plaintiff, to wit, all that portion of the southwest quarter of section number four, in township number seventeen, south, in range number twenty-three, east, etc., lying east of Bull creek, excepting six and six one-hundredth acres belonging to the Kansas City, Fort Scott & Gulf Bailroad Company as a right of way, containing one hundred and forty-six and ninety-four one-hundredth acres of laud, and situated in the county of Miami, state of Kansas, and that the defendants are lawfully in possession thereof; and that the plaintiff is entitled to recover for taxes paid on said land, with the interest, penalties, costs and charges, the sum of $689.09, which sum is adjudged to be a lien upon said real estate; and that in default of payment of said sum of money with accruing interest thereon, a special execution issue according to law directed to the sheriff of Miami county, Kansas, commanding him to advertise and sell said real estate, to satisfy said sum of money with accruing interest thereon, and all costs hereafter accruing.”
To the foregoing findings, judgment and order, the defendants excepted. The court further adjudged that—
“ The defendants have and recover of the plaintiff the costs herein accrued to the date hereof, amounting to the sum of $12.75, and that in default of payment execution issue against the plaintiff.”
To the above judgment against him for costs, the plaintiff duly excepted, and thereafter filed his motion to modify the same, and give him judgment for costs against the defendants. This motion the court overruled, and also the motion for a new trial made by defendants. They bring the case to this court.
W. H. Browne, and T. N. Sedgwick, for plaintiffs in error.
Beeson & Baker, for defendant in error.

Opinion:
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Valentine, J.:
This was an action in the nature of ejectment, brought by George B. Chandler against William G. Krutz and others, to recover all that portion of the southwest quarter of section 4, in township 17, south, of range 23, east, and lying east of Bull creek, excepting six and six one- hundredth acres belonging to the Missouri river, Fort Scott & Gulf railroad company as a right of way — the plaintiff's tract containing 146^®^- acres. It is admitted that in March, 1876, and subsequently thereto, Krutz owned the land in controversy and had the actual possession thereof. The land was taxed for the year 1876, and the taxes not being paid, the land was sold therefor to the plaintiff in September, 1877, and the plaintiff having paid the subsequent taxes thereon for the years 1877, 1878, and 1879, a tax deed was executed to him on July 21, 1881, and was recorded on the same day. It is admitted that this, tax deed was void, or rather voidable, as a conveyance, for reasons not now necessary to state, and therefore that the judgment of the court below rendered in favor of the defendant and against the plaintiff for the land is correct. But the court below also and at the same time rendered a judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant, adjudging the amount of the taxes with all the legal interest and costs thereon paid by the plaintiff to- be á lien upon the land; and of this judgment the defendants below, as plaintiffs in error, now complain and appeal to this court. They claim that the taxes should not be made a lien upon the land, for the following reasons: (1) The description of the land in the tax deed and the tax proceedings is indefinite and uncertain.; (2) the assessor did not. attach to his return of the assessment of real property for the year 1876 any oath whatever, as required by law; (3) the county charged up against the land twenty-five cents for delinquent notice, when it paid only four cents for such notice.
IVe do not think that the judgment of the court below is erroneous, or that any of the irregularities mentioned by the plaintiffs in error, defendants below, will relieve Mr. Krutz from the payment of his taxes. Everything was fair and just and regular, except the above-mentioned irregularities. The land was assessed and taxed to Mr. Krutz each year in his own name, his name being placed on the assessment roll and on the tax roll each year as the owner of the land, and there was not the slightest room for him to have been misled by the description. The description of the land.for the year 1876 is the most imperfect of all the descriptions, and is the one of which the plaintiffs in error, defendants below, principally complain. The description of the land for that year is as follows: "Pt. S.W. (146^¡- a.) section 4, township 17, range 23, in Miami county." The land was not assessed or taxed that year by any other description, and it was not assessed or taxed in any one of the other years, except by a single description, and it was always assessed and taxed to Mr. Krutz, and he has never paid the taxes for any of the years for which the plaintiff Chandler paid them. We think Mr. Krutz is bound to pay his taxes. He owned the land and had it in his actual possession, and it was assessed and taxed to him, and by a perfect description, except that the letters "pt.," meaning part, were used without any specific designation of the part of the quarter-section which was intended. But he owned nearly all the quarter-section, to wit, 146]^ thereof, and the description showed that 146T9^¡- of the quarter-section was intended to be assessed and taxed, and assessed and taxed to Krutz, and evidently that much of the quarter-section could not have been assessed or taxed without assessing and taxing nearly all of the defendant's land. Prom this description he must have known that the larger portion of his land was in fact assessed and taxed, and that all was intended to be assessed and taxed. Pie could not possibly have been misled by the description. He knew that his land ought to be taxed, and he knew that he had not and did not pay his taxes on any part thereof. In connection with this case, see Comm'rs of Jefferson County v. Johnson, 23 Kas. 717; Maxson v. Huston, 22 id. 643, 644.
We think there is nothing in the case that will relieve Mr. Krutz from paying his taxes.
The judgment of the court below will be affirmed.
All the Justices concurring.