Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

55 Neb. 152

Twinting v. Finlay

Nebraska Supreme Court

Decided May 19, 1898

Nebraska Supreme Court · decided 1898-05-19

<p>I. Payment of Taxes: Evidence. Evidence held, insufficient to establish the defense of payment.</p> <p>2. Taxes: Oath oe Assessor. The failure of an-assessor to attach his oath to, and return the same with, the assessment roll are irregularities merely which do not affect the validity of the tax.</p>

Relies on Wood v. Helmer · Hallo v. Helmer · Johnson v. Finley

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · Decided 1898-05-19

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently June 1935

1 federal appellate · 11 state decisions

5018981900191019201930decided

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 →

Norval, J.

¶1Tbis was an action to foreclose a tax deed, and from a decree in favor of tbe plaintiff tbe defendants bave prosecuted an appeal.

¶2It is insisted that tbe defendants bad paid tbe taxes •to .the county treasurer, for wbicb tbe real estate was sold, prior to tbe date of such sale. A careful perusal and consideration of- tbe evidence adduced on tbe trial convinces us that tbe defendants paid no portion of tbe taxes included in tbe decree.

¶3It is finally argued that tbe taxes are invalid because the assessor failed to attach bis oath to tbe assessment roll for the year 1890. At tbe time of tbe trial in tbe court below it does appear that no oath of tbe assessor *153was attached to the assessment book, nor was such oath to be found in the office of the county clerk of Douglas county. It is not alleged in the answer, nor was it proven upon the trial, that the assessor did not make oath to his return at the time he deposited the same with the county clerk. The mere failure to attach the assessor’s oath to the assessment roll did not invalidate the tax based upon such, assessment. The omission was an irregularity merely. (Wood v. Helmer, 10 Neb. 65; South Platte Land Co. v. City of Crete, 11 Neb. 344; Hallo v. Helmer, 12 Neb. 87; McClure v. Warner, 16 Neb; 447; Merriam v. Dovey, 25 Neb. 618; Roads v. Estabrook, 35 Neb. 297; Johnson v. Finley, 54 Neb. 733.) These cases are-decisive of the question. The decree is right, and is

¶4AFFIRMED.

/55/neb/152 · .json · Public domain