Case Name: Sibley v. Bullis et al.
Court: Iowa Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Iowa
Decision Date: 1875-04-26
Citations: 40 Iowa 429
Docket Number: 
Parties: Sibley v. Bullis et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Iowa Reports
Volume: 40
Pages: 429–431

Head Matter:
Sibley v. Bullis et al.
1. Tax Sale: combination: fraud. The grantee in good faith of the purchaser at a tax sale, who was guilty of fraudulent Combination to prevent competition, acquires a good title if without notice of the combination. Following Van Shaack v. Robbins, 36 Iowa, 201.
2. Conveyance: quit claim. A deed which contains the words, “ do hereby sell .and convey unto,” is not a mere quit claim deed.
3i Tax Sale: deed : conclusiveness. A tax deed which shows a sale to have been in forty-acre tracts will not be defeated by evidence tending to show a sale in quarter sections, this fact pertaining to the manner of sale.
Appeal from, Howard District Court.
Monday, April 26.
This is a suit in equity to quiet the title in plaintiff to the SW. i of Sec. 29, Tp. 100, E. 12, west. The plaintiff is the grantee and owner of the patent title. The defendant, M. E. Doolittle, bought the land at tax sale, in October, 1865, and took the- treasurer’s certificate of purchase; in September, 1868, he sold and assigned the certificate to the defendant, Lydia J.. Travel, who received four separate deeds therefor, made by tbe treasurer to ber in November, 1868; in August, 1869, sbe conveyed to tbe defendant, Jane Doolittle; in Sept;, 1869, sbe conveyed to tbe defendants, W. Strother and Levi Bulbs, and in July, 1872, Strotber conveyed bis individual half to the defendant, Bulbs. Tbe original notice in this case was served November 9, 1871, and tbe petition was filed May, 1872. Tbe answer sets up these facts, and asks to have the title quieted in Bulbs.: April 21, 1874, judgment was rendered, quieting tbe title in Bulbs. Tbe plaintiff appeals.
3. A. Goodrich and J. 0. Crosby, for appellant.
L. Bullís, pro se.

Opinion:
Cole, J.
Tbe plaintiff is tbe grantee and owner of tbe patent title; and tbe purchaser at the tax sale was guilty of fraud, for that be was a party to a combination to prevent competition in bidding at the sale. Kerwen v. Allen, 31 Iowa, 578. But it further appears from tbe evidence, and we so find, that tbe. purchaser at tbe tax sale assigned tbe certificate of purchase to a third person, who purchased the same in good faith, for a valuable consideration, and without any notice of tbe fraudulent combination at tbe sale; and that, after procuring tax deeds thereon, sbe sold and conveyed tbe same to another, who likewise purchased in good faith. Tbe fraud at tbe sale will not, it has been held, defeat the title of such bona fide purchaser. Van Shaack v. Robbins, 36 Iowa, 201. The evidence fails to show that Bulbs bad any knowledge of such fraud when be and Strother purchased.
Tbe conveyances are not mere quit claim deeds; but contain tbe language, " do hereby sell and convey unto," as well as claim- That even a mere quit claim will pass tbe title; see McConnell v. Reed, 4 Scam., 117; Rogers v. Hussey, 36 Iowa, 664.
Tbe tax deeds show that the sale of tbe lands was in forty acre tracts, and although tbe evidence tends to show the sale to have been made in tbe entire quarter section, yet this being of tbe manner, tbe deed is conclu sive. Ware v. Little, 35 Iowa, 234, and cases cited. But if all was sold together, it would not necessarily be invalid. Bulkley v. Callanan, 32 Iowa, 461, and cases cited.
AFFIRMED.