Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

68 Or. 563

Borthwick v. Johnson

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided January 13, 1914

Oregon Supreme Court · decided 1914-01-13

<p>Taxation — Tax Deeds — Validity—Presumptions and Burden of Proof.</p> <p>1. Unlike a sheriff’s deed on sale of land for delinquent taxes, his deed on sale of land bid in by the county is not prima facie evidence of regularity of the proceeding, and one claiming thereunder must show that every step necessary to vest complete title in the county has been complied with.</p> <p>[As to recitals in tax deeds and their effect as evidence, see note in 31 Am. St. Rep. 233. See, also, note in 28 Am. St. Rep. 19.]</p> <p>Taxation — Tax Titles — Suits—Evidence. .</p> <p>2. In a suit to quiet title to land, a party claiming title under a sheriffs deed to land bid in by the county for taxes is not entitled to a decree in his favor, in the absence of evidence that any warrant was ever issued by the County Court for the sale of taxes, or of any notice of sale, or of the certificates of sale whieh the law requires to be given the purchaser at a tax sale.</p>

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently April 1938

1 state decisions

Relies on Ayers v. Lund · Rafferty v. Davis · Dufur v. Healy

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Reversed: Decree Rendered · Decided 1914-01-13

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Opinion by

Mr. Chief Justice McBride.

¶21. Unlike deeds made by the sheriff on sales of land for delinquent taxes, deeds made by that officer upon sales of land bid in by the county are not prima facie evidence of the regularity of the proceedings; and it is incumbent upon the party claiming under such a conveyance to show that every step necessary to vest a complete title in the county has been complied with: Ayers v. Lund, 49 Or. 303 (89 Pac. 806, 124 Am. St. Rep. 1046); Dufur v. Healy, 56 Or. 49 (107 Pac. 692); Rafferty v. Davis, 54 Or. 77 (102 Pac. 305).

¶3■2. The defendant failed in this act at the very threshold. There is no evidence of any warrant ever having been issued by the County Court for the sale of property for delinquent taxes, nor of any notice of sale having been given; neither are the certificates which the law requires to be given to a purchaser on such sales produced. In short, there is an entire lack of any evidence tending to show that the lot in question was ever legally sold to or bid in by the county for delinquent taxes. Defendant Johnson seems to have relied wholly upon the sheriff’s deed made when the land was sold by the county, and upon the assessment-rolls and the entries by the clerk upon the record of delinquent tax sales; but .evidence of the facts which give life and validity to a sale, namely, the return of the sheriff upon the tax-roll, the warrant for collection of delinquent taxes, and proof of due notice of sale are all wanting. In the absence of these there is nothing to show that the county had any title to the property when it conveyed it to defendant.

¶4*566The decree will therefore he reversed, and a decree entered here declaring plaintiff to be the owner in fee of the lot described, and quieting his title thereto.

¶5Reversed: Decree Rendered.

/68/or/563 · .json · Public domain