Case Name: RICHARD H. FAGAN v. HUNTRESS & BROWN LUMBER COMPANY and Others
Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Minnesota
Decision Date: 1900-07-11
Citations: 80 Minn. 441
Docket Number: Nos. 12,129—(190)
Parties: RICHARD H. FAGAN v. HUNTRESS & BROWN LUMBER COMPANY and Others.
Judges: 
Reporter: Minnesota Reports
Volume: 80
Pages: 441–442

Head Matter:
RICHARD H. FAGAN v. HUNTRESS & BROWN LUMBER COMPANY and Others.
July 11, 1900.
Nos. 12,129 — (190).
Tax Judgment — Description.
The tax judgment described in the opinion held void on its face for uncertainty in the description of the land and in the statement of the amount of the judgment.
Appeal by plaintiff from an order of the district court for Lake county, Cant, J., denying a motion for a new trial.
Affirmed.
H. H. Hoyt, for appellant.
M. H. Stanford, Jaques & Hudson and McCordie & Crosby, for respondents.
Reported in 83 N. W. 382.

Opinion:
START, C. J.
Action to determine adverse claims to vacant and unoccupied land. The trial court found that the plaintiff had no title to the land, and he appealed from an order denying his motion for a new trial.
The plaintiff claimed title to the land by virtue of a tax sale made pursuant to a tax judgment against it for the taxes of 1893. The material part of such judgment, as shown by the record in this case, is in these words:
This judgment is void on its face for two reasons. The attempted description of the land is fatally defective. It describes no land. Keith v. Hayden, 26 Minn. 212, 2 N. W. 495; Kern v. Clarke, 59 Minn. 70, 60 N. W. 809. Again, the attempted designation of the amount of the tax, penalty, and judgment is void for uncertainty. There is nothing on the face of the judgment to indicate what the figures used for that purpose mean. Tidd v. Rines, 26 Minn. 201, 2 N. W. 497.
Order affirmed.