Case Name: Conrad Sealing v. H. C. Lawrence et al.
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1875-12
Citations: 27 Ohio St. 441
Docket Number: 
Parties: Conrad Sealing v. H. C. Lawrence et al.
Judges: Johnson and Ashburn, JJ., concurred.
Reporter: Ohio State Reports, New Service
Volume: 27
Pages: 441–452

Head Matter:
Conrad Sealing v. H. C. Lawrence et al.
In an action to annul a statutory sale of school land for unpaid purchase money, on the ground of a defective notice in a specified newspaper, the answer admitted the defects in that notice, but alleged that a notice was published in another newspaper published and of general circulation in the county, for the time and in the manner and in all respects as required by law, which allegation was denied by the reply. Held:
1. Though the answer was in general terms, in the absence of a motion to make it more definite and certain, it was sufficient to admit evidence' showing that the notice mentioned in the answer was published in accordance with the requirements of the statute.
2. In the absence of a special finding, or a bill of exceptions setting out the evidence, the presumption of law is that the testimony was sufficient to sustain a general finding of the issue in favor of the defendants.
8. A sale of school land hy a county auditor for unpaid purchase money,, pursuant to a notice in all respects as required hy the statute, is not void in law, merely because another and defective notice for the same-sale, on another day, was published in another paper, and a judgment refusing to set aside the sale, will not he reversed on error, where the record shows no other ground for setting it aside, ner that any one was-injured or misled hy the defective notice.
Error, to the District Court of Wood county.
The original action was brought by the plaintiff in the Court of Common Pleas of Wood county to annul a sale of a parcel of school lands, and to enjoin the delivery of a deed in execution of the sale.
The plaintiff avers in his petition that he is the owner and holder of a certificate of said land, purchased at an auditor’s sale, November 19, 1859, for the sum of $175, payable one-twelfth in hand, and the balance in eleven equal annual installments, with interest; and that seven installments have been paid, together with the taxes ; that on October 23, 1868, the defendant, Newton, being the auditor of said county, sold said land at public sale to the defendant, Lawrence; that the sale was defective and invalid, for the reasons that the notice of sale published in the “ Wood County Sentinel” did not describe the land sold as required by law; did not state the name of the owner of the land ; did not state the “ money due and to become due ” on' said land, but stated the whole as then due;'the auditor refused to receive a bid for less than the whole amount then due and to become due, and that in the first five publications of said notice, the sale was advertised to be on the 25th day of October, and only in the sixth to be on the 23d day of October, 1868. He further avers that he had no knowledge of the advertisement of the land for sale until after it had! been sold to Lawrence, when he offered him $300, the-amount paid to the auditor by said Lawi’ence on such sale,, and $25 for his trouble, which he refused to receive ; that he is willing to pay the full amount due on the land, being $90.25, and brings the same into court for that purpose; that the land is worth $1,200, and a confirmation of the sale and delivery of a deed therefore will damage plaintiff $900. He therefore prays that the auditor may be enjoined from delivering a deed conveying the land to Lawrence, and that the sale may be annulled.
The defendants answered as follows :
44 The defendants say that while they admit the allegations of fact in the petition set forth as to the publication in the 4 "Wood County Sentinel ’ to be true as stated, they also say the notice for the sale of the lands in the petition described was published in the 4 Perrysburg Journal,’ a-newspaper printed, published, and of general circulation in. said county of Wood, for the time and in the manner and. in all respects as required by law.”
To this answer the plaintiffs filed the following reply :
44 Plaintiffs in reply to the answer of defendants deny that the publication of said sale in said 4 Perrysburg Journal ’ was in all respects as required by law, for the reasons :
441. That the notice in said 4 Perrysburg Journal ’ did not state the name of the owner, or of the original purchaser' of said land.
44 2. Said notice did not state the 4 money due and to become-due’ on said land, but stated the whole of the 4 money due and to become due ’ as then due.
44 The whole of the money under the original contract is not yet due.”
An injunction having been allowed, the defendants moved, to dissolve the injunction, and filed certain affidavits to sustain the motion, which have been copied into the record.
The ease was appealed to the District Court, where the-case was tried upon the pleadings and testimony given in court, and the court found the equity of the case for the-defendants, and rendered judgment in their favor. No-motion for a new trial was made, nor was any bill of exceptions taken.
To reverse this judgment the plaintiff prosecuted his petition in error in the Supreme Court.
F. § JD. K. Hollenbeck, for plaintiff in error,
cited S. & C„. 1342, sees. 29, 33, as the statutes applicable to the case, and contended that the presumption is that the irregularity in the publication of notice misled and deceived the public ; that parties who would otherwise have attended the sale were prevented from doing so, and the plaintiff was thereby injured, and for this he had a right to complain and to ask relief. Hey v. Schooley, 7 Ohio, pt. 2, p. 48; 5 Ohio, 458; 10 Ib. 139; 11 Ib. 359.
C. H. Scribner, James Murray, and Henry H. Dodge, for •defendants in error.

Opinion:
Day, J.
The plaintiff' seeks to annul the sale in question, and to enjoin its execution, solely, on the ground that the notice of the sale was defective. . In his petition he relies upon a defective notice published in the Wood County Sentinel. The answer admits the alleged defects of that notice, but avers the publication of a notice in the Perrysburg Journal in all respects as inquired by law. This is denied by the reply. Upon this issue the case was tried. After hearing the evidence, the court found and decided in favor of the defendants.
It is true the answer is in general terms, but, in the absence of a motion to make it more definite and certain, it was sufficient to admit evidence to show that the notice in the Perrysburg Journal was in all respects in accordance with the requirements of the statute, and the contrary not being made to appear, we are bound to presume that the testimony fully sustained the court in its finding in favor of the validity of that notice under which the sale was made. The correctness of this finding, as the record comes before us, can not be questioned. No motion for a new trial was made, and consequently no bill of exceptions was taken to bring the evidence before a reviewing court. This is the only way the testimony could be brought on the record. The affidavits used on the motion to dissolve the injunction, though copied in the record, do not properly con stitute part of the record, and can not be regarded by us. Sleet v. Williams, 21 Ohio St. 82; Young v. State, 23 Ib. 577.
In this state of the case, then, can we say the court manifestly erred in holding that the sale was legal ? The statute in regard to delinquent purchasers of school lands provides that, " if any purchaser or lessee shall fail to make-any payment on any tract of land for the space of twelve months after the same shall become due and payable, the-auditor of the proper county shall forthwith proceed to sell such tract or tracts of land, with the improvements thereon,., at the door of the court-house, to the highest bidder therefor, in cash, having first given notice of the time and place-of such sale, containing a description of the lands and the-money due and to become due thereon, by publishing the same in some newspaper of general circulation in said, county for six consecutive weeks before the day of sale." S. & C. 1342, sec. 29.
It is not pretended .but that all the facts existed in the-ease to warrant the auditor to proceed under this section to sell the laud in question; nor can it be disputed but that,, so far as the notice in the " Journal" was concerned, he proceeded in all respects in accordance with the statute. But one notice is required, and had no other been given, the-regularity of the sale could not be questioned. The only* question, then, is, whether the defective and useless notice in the " Sentinel " of sale on the 25th of October vitiated the correct notice of sale on the 23d of October, under which the land was sold? It is not pretended that any fraud or wrong was intended by the useless notice. But for the discrepancy of date — which, doubtless, occurred by mistake — there would be no room for cavil. Nor does the-plaintiff* in his pleadings claim that this discrepancy vitiated the notice under which the sale was made. He relied upon the alleged defects of that notice. The defective notice in the " Sentinel" was a legal nullity, and could not negative the-fact of the good and lawful notice in the " Journal," which was all the law required to authorize the sale. The mere fact of the useless notice, with its discrepancy of date, did-. not annul the power of sale acquired by the auditor, by his -compliance with the statute, under the notice under which he acted. We can not say, therefore, that the sale was without lawful power and void.
Nor does the spurious notice of itself afford a ground of -equitable interference with the sale. It did not mislead the plaintiff. He avers that he had no knowledge of either notice until after the sale. It is not averred .that the land •sold for a less-sum by reason of the " Sentinel" notice, nor that any one was misled thereby, or that any injury resulted therefrom. He alleges, it is true, that the land sold for much less than its value, but nothing is stated from which it can be inferred that this was the result of an imperfect publication of notice of the sale. In fact, no case is made in the pleadings for equitable relief, other than the defect •claimed in the notice, which, if it existed, would render the sale illegal, for want of compliance with the statutory re- • quisitions to authorize the sale. Failing on this ground, there is really no ground left for the relief sought by the plaintiff.
It must be borne in mind that the case comes before us -on error, and although the court below might have been justified in coming to a different result, it does not follow "that we can say it erred in the conclusion at which' it arrived. We can not reverse, unless there be manifest error shown upon the record. In. fact, it does not affinnatively .appear in the record that the auditor published the defective notice in the " Sentinel." It can only be inferred. An imaginary case will not warrant a reversal on error. Nor is there anything in the nature of the case requiring the strict construction applicable to cases of forfeiture. All that was required was a compliance with the law. That was done, as we are bound to conclude from the- finding of •the court below. No forfeiture was sought against the plaintiff. It was merely a statutory sale of the land to pay the balance due from the plaintiff for the purchase price. ' The residue arising from the sale the statute requires to be •paid over to the plaintiff', as in other cases whei'e land is ¡sold to pay a debt.
We can not say that the District Court manifestly erred in the judgment it rendered in the case, and the judgment must therefore be affirmed.
Johnson and Ashburn, JJ., concurred.