Opinion
No. 30339.
May 9, 1944. Rehearing Denied November 21, 1944.
(Syllabus.)
1. TAXATION — Property acquired by county at tax resale may be sold at price approved by board of county commissioners.
Under Title 68, O. S. 1941 § 432j, property acquired by a county under the tax resale laws may be sold by the treasurer at such price as may be approved by the board of county commissioners.
2. SAME — Resale tax deed prima facie evidence of compliance with statutes — Mere irregularities in proceedings insufficient to defeat deed.
Under Title 68, O. S. 1941 § 432h, a resale tax deed, valid on its face, and executed in substantial compliance with Title 68, O. S. 1941 § 432g, is prima facie evidence that the property was legally sold at resale to the grantee named in the deed and was duly advertised before being sold, and that all proceedings, notices, and duties required of and imposed by law prerequisite to vesting authority in the county treasurer to execute such deed have been followed, given, complied with, and performed. To defeat the deed it must be clearly pleaded and clearly proven that one or more of the essential prerequisites to the vesting of authority in the county treasurer to execute such deed was wholly omitted and not done; and a showing that one or more of said prerequisites was irregularly done is not sufficient to defeat the deed. But see Welborn et al. v. Whitney et al., 190 Okla. 630, 126 P.2d 263 , as to time required for publication notice under prior statute, art. 31, ch. 66, sec. 9, p. 551, S. L. 1939.
3. SAME — Resale tax deed not invalidated by notice of resale failing to include part of one year's delinquent taxes, penalties, etc.
Failure of the county treasurer to include a part of one year's delinquent taxes, penalties, interest, and costs levied and assessed against land in the notice of resale of property under the resale tax laws is an irregularity and is not a frailure in whole to advertise the land for sale for delinquent taxes, penalties, interest, and costs.
Appeal from District Court, Grady County; Will Linn, Judge.
Quiet title action by W.E. Grisso against H. K. Ellis et al. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
Hatcher Bond, of Chickasha, for plaintiff in error.
Fred W. Martin, of Wagoner, for defendants in error.
W.E. Grisso, record owner of land in Grady county, sought to quiet title to his lands and by the judgment failed.
Defendants' title to the lands rests upon a resale tax deed, dated May 17, 1938, executed and delivered to the chairman of the board of county commissioners of Grady county and a commissioner's deed executed and delivered to Lucian Erwin on September 6, 1938, and mesne conveyances to Johnson et al.
The land was advertised and sold for taxes due and delinquent for the years 1932-1936, inclusive, in the total amount of $268.55.
Three-fourths of the 1937 ad valorem taxes were not included in the notice of sale, but the record before us shows that the total of all taxes, penalties, interest, and costs shown by the county treasurer's record for which the land was sold was in fact $3.22 less than the sum for which the land was advertised and sold. However, the amount of costs for advertisement was not known to the sole witness, the county treasurer, who testified at the instance of plaintiff. It is possible that the discrepancy of $3.22 was the cost of publication of notice of sale. The trial court sustained a demurrer to the evidence of plaintiff, quieting title in defendants, and awarded possession accordingly, together with judgment for rental value, based on evidence, in the sum of $116.67 during the period of plaintiff's withholding possession.
Our decision herein is based upon our decision in Bramble et al. v. Caywood, 193 Okla. 668, 146 P.2d 587, and the applicable part of the syllabus in that case is adopted herein.
Affirmed.
CORN, C. J., and BAYLESS, WELCH, HURST, and ARNOLD, JJ., concur. GIBSON, V.C.J., and OSBORN and DAVISON, JJ., dissent.