Solberg v. Baldwin

Citations

• 46 Wash. 196
• 89 P. 561
• 1907 Wash. LEXIS 589

Syllabus

<p>' Taxation — Foreclosure—Defenses. Laws 1899, p. 299, § 18, providing that if, in a tax foreclosure, a defense in writing specify a particular “cause of objection,” the court shall hear the same in a summary manner without other pleadings, does not restrict defenses to matters pertaining to the levy and assessment of the tax, or preclude the overruling of a demurrer to a cross-complaint.</p> <p>Same — Defenses—Payment—Fraud—Answer—Sufficiency. An answer denominated a cross-complaint, in a tax foreclosure, is in reality a “statement of new matter constituting a defense,” viz., a plea of payment, where it alleges a fraudulent payment of the taxes by one while in possession and receiving rents and profits, who took out a certificate of delinquency in the name of others for the purpose of defrauding creditors of the owners; and under such circumstances a court of equity will not decree 'a sale of the land for the taxes so paid.</p> <p>Same- — Payment. Payment of taxes can oe pleaded to defeat a tax foreclosure, even as against the state.</p> <p>Same — Tender. A tender of a tax is not essential to a defense to a tax foreclosure, where the plea is that the taxes were paid by one in possession having money rightfully applicable thereto, and that the tax title was fraudulently taken in the name of another who was but a dummy for the payor of the taxes.</p> <p>Same — Fraud—Payment to Strengthen Title. One paying taxes for the purpose of defrauding creditors of the owner of the land does not stand in the position of one who acquires a tax title for the purpose of strengthening his own title, and can acquire no rights by such payment.</p>