Hills v. Allison

Citations

• 79 Kan. 617
• 100 P. 651
• 1909 Kan. LEXIS 252

Syllabus

<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>1. Ejectment—Occupying Claimant—Lien for Taxes. A tax-deed holder in possession who is defeated in an action of ejectment and who claims and receives the benefit of the occupying claimant act should be reimbursed for that portion only of the gross taxes paid which was levied upon the assessed valuation of the land without the improvements.</p> <p>2. - Refusal of Occupying Claimant to Pay Value of the Land — Judicial Sale■—Liens on Proceeds. If a tax-deed holder be defeated in an action of ejectment, and pursuant to his demand for the benefit of the occupying claimant act the value of the land and of the improvements be established separately, the successful claimant may elect to receive the value of the land without the improvements; and if su,eh an election be made the court may order the land sold if the occupant refuse to pay such value within a fixed period, and may establish liens upon the proceeds of sale according to the rights of the parties.</p> <p>3. Practice, Supreme Court — Abstract of the Record. A printed copy of the entire record, without abridgment or condensation, is not an abstract within the meaning of rule 10a.</p> <p>4. -Same. If the plaintiff in error fail to comply with the rule respecting abstracts the court may in its discretion dismiss the proceeding in error or affirm the judgment of the lower court; but the defendant in error may not demand a dismissal or affirmance as a matter of right because of such failure.</p> <p>5. -Same. In this case the plaintiff in error is allowed no costs for a printed copy of the unabridged record, submitted as an abstract, although the judgment of the lower court is reversed in his favor.</p>