Case Name: Ristine, Guardian, v. Johnson et al.
Court: Supreme Court of Indiana
Jurisdiction: Indiana
Decision Date: 1895-10-15
Citations: 143 Ind. 44
Docket Number: No. 17,312
Parties: Ristine, Guardian, v. Johnson et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Indiana Reports
Volume: 143
Pages: 44–49

Head Matter:
No. 17,312.
Ristine, Guardian, v. Johnson et al.
Interest. — Tax Sale. — Redemption.—Imnatie.—-Interest cannot be allowed in computing the necessary amount to redeem a lunatic’s land from a tax sale, under section 8610, R. S. 1894, authorizing a redemption from such sale within two years by any land-owner, on payment of the purchase-money with costs and 25 per cent, addi tional, and all taxes paid, with interest, and section 8611, authorizing a redemption in a similar manner by insane persons within, two years after their recovery.
Tax Sale. — Redemption.—Lunatic.—Conveyance.-—A purchaser at a tax sale of land belonging to a lunatic, who has received a tax deed, cannot, on redemption, recover under section 8641, R. S. 1894, providing that where any conveyance pursuant to a tax sale proves invalid the purchaser shall be entitled to recover from the owner the amount of legal taxes, charges and interest at 20 per cent, from the date of the sale, and all subsequent taxes paid with like interest, as by sections 8610, 8611, such lunatic has the right to redeem within two years after the expiration of the disability by paying the amount paid at the tax sale, with costs and penalty not exceeding 25 per cent, in addition, and the taxes which have been paid thereon, with 6 per cent, interest.
Opinion on Petition, by Monks, J.
From the Montgomery Circuit Court.
Ristine & Ristine, for appellant.
H. D. Van Cleave and J. M. Davis, for appellees.

Opinion:
Monks, J.
In this case there was a special finding of facts and conclusions of law staged by the court. The only error assigned calls in question the conclusions of law. The facts, so far as necessary to the determination, of the questions presented, are as follows:
Appellant's ward is, and has been since 1887, a person of unsound mind. His real estate was sold at the tax sales in 1888, 1890 and 1891. Tax deeds were made to the purchasers at the sales of 1888 and 1890. This action was commenced in May, 1892, and tried February, 1893. The only question presented is whether interest is to be computed on the amounts for which said real estate sold at said tax sale. It is admitted by appellant that appellees are entitled to six per cent, interest on each payment of taxes by them made, if any, after said sales, but he insists that the court erred in computing interest on the money paid at said tax sales.
We think appellant is right in this contention. Sec tion 6466, R. S. 1881, and section 8610, R. S. 1894, which is a re-enactment of the first named section, provide that the owner or occupant of any land sold for taxes may redeem the same at any time during the two .years next ensuing, and if redeemed after one year, and within two years, he shall pay the purchase-money, together with costs and twenty-five per cent, in addition, and he shall also pay all taxes which have been paid thereon, with interest at the rate of six per cent, per annum cn such taxes.
Filed October 15. 1895.
Sections 6467, R. S. 1881, and 8611, R. S. 1894, provide that infants, idiots and insane persons may redeem any lands belonging to them, sold for taxes, within two years after the expiration of such disability, in the same manner as.provided in the foregoing section for redemption by other persons. Appellant's ward comes within the purview of these sections, and is entitled to the benefit thereof.
The section referred to, does not provide for any interest on the purchase-money paid at the tax sale — only a penalty thereon and costs are allowed by law, in case of redemption-. Interest, however, is provided for on all subsequent taxes paid by the purchaser or his assignee. Schissel v. Dickson, 129 Ind. 139, is not in point, as that case depended upon section 208 of the tax law of 1872, 1 Davis Stat. 121, which expressly provides for interest on the purchase-money paid at a tax sale, in case of redemption.
It-follows, therefore, that the court erred in its conclusions of law. Judgment reversed, with instructions to restate the conclusions of law in accordance with this' opinion, and for futher proceedings not in conflict therewith.