Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

196 Okla. 174

163 P.2d 225

House v. Mainka

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided September 25, 1945

Supreme Court of Oklahoma · decided 1945-09-25

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““The notice of resale was erroneous in that it was excessive, in the sum of approximately $6, which was the portion of the 1940' taxes which had not yet become due and delinquent. That error and excessive amount in the notice for the reason indicated renders the sale invalid.””

quoted by 1 later decision, including Reyes v. Goss

Relies on Lind v. McKinley · Shnier v. Vahlberg

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1945-09-25

How this case has been cited

Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently April 1962 · most notably Jenkins v. Frederick (1952), Carman v. McMahan (1947)

42 state decisions

220194519501960decided

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.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PER CURIAM.

¶1 The question presented is the effect of including in notice of resale of real estate for nonpayment of taxes a certain part of the taxes assessed, but not delinquent upon the date of the first publication of notice.

¶2 At the November, 1938, tax sale for 1937 taxes the county became the purchaser. There was no redemption and no taxes paid for 1938 to. 1940, inclusive. Notice of 1941 resale was first published April 10, 1941, and included in the total of $118.29 all taxes levied for 1940. The last quarter of 1940 taxes did not become delinquent until May 1, 1941, 68 O. S. 1941 § 351. The land is farm land and was purchased at resale by an individual purchaser at a bid equaling the total amount of taxes, interest, penalties, and costs as disclosed by the notice of sale.

¶3 The notice should have excluded the last quarter of the 1940 taxes. Shnier v. Vahlberg, 188 Okla. 471, 110 P. 2d 593. The notice of resale was erroneous in that it was excessive in the sum of approximately $6, which was the portion of the 1940 taxes which had not yet become due and delinquent. That error and excessive amount in the notice for the reason indicated renders the sale invalid: See Lind v. McKinley, 196 Okla. 4, 161 P. 2d 1016.

¶4 The judgment of the trial court sustaining the validity of the resale deed is reversed, and the cause remanded, with directions to render judgment for the plaintiff; the plaintiff however, to be required to fully comply with the tender statute.

GIBSON, C.J., and RILEY, OSBORN, WELCH, DAVISON, and ARNOLD, JJ., concur. HURST, V.C.J., and BAYLESS and CORN, JJ., dissent.
/196/okla/174 · .json · Public domain