<p>Fraud in obtaining tax deed —owner of land seeks relief — conveyance decreed. —Defendant having purchased complainant’s land at a tax salo, tho latter, shortly before timo for redemption expired, offered to pay him the amount of his bid, with twenty-five per cent, intorest thereon, for assignment of the certificate of said sale, and defendant promised that ho would send complainant an assignment of said certificate, and acoept the amount of said hid and intorest, within two or three days. Complainant, relying upon the defendant’s promise, permitted the time for redemption to expire, after which defendant obtained a deed from the Auditor General, and upon a tender subsequently made to him, of the amount of his bid, with interest and charges, refused to accept the same, or to execute a deed, of said land to complainant;— Held, That defendant’s conduct, under the circumstances, was a fraud-upon complainant, and that tho latter was entitled to a decree against him for conveyance of said property.</p>
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1865-01-28
How this case has been cited
Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently March 1951
2 federal appellate · 1 district · 21 state decisions — followed in 11 states
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
¶2I cannot concur in this opinion, as I can find from *127the testimony no evidence of a contract which the law should or will enforce, and of course no 'breach of performance. Neither do I discover any fraud in the conduct of McKee respecting- the subject of controversy.