Sparks v. Standard Lumber Co.
Citations
- 92 Wash. 584
- 159 P. 812
- 1916 Wash. LEXIS 818
Syllabus
<p>Taxation — Tax Title — Foreclosure of Delinquency Certificate —Unnecessary Parties — Service—Tax Deed — Effect'. The foreclosure of a delinquency tax certificate being a proceeding in rem in which the owner of record described in the certificate is the only necessary defendant, the proceeding is not void or subject to collateral attack because of failure to personally serve the record owner of the property at the time the certificate was foreclosed, notwithstanding he was made a party and was living on the premises; especially in view of Rem. & Bal. Code, § 9267, providing that a tax deed shall be prima facie evidence of the regularity of the proceedings, and the policy of the state to make a tax title a favored title equivalent to a decree quieting title in the purchaser as a grant from the state.</p> <p>Same — Foreclosure—Due Process — Notice to Owner. Tax foreclosure proceedings, being in rem, do not necessarily depend upon the practice acts, and in no way violate the constitutional guaranties of due process through want of personal notice to the owner.</p> <p>Same — Foreclosure—Collateral Attack — Rights of Mortgagee. An attack upon a tax foreclosure judgment and sale, by a mortgagee who does not show a payment by the reputed owner or any attempt to comply with the privileges to pay or redeem given mortgagees by Rem. & Bal. Code, §§ 9258, 9259, is no more than at attempt to redeem in equity after the time of redemption.</p>
Judges: Chadwick, Ellis, Fullerton, Morris, Mount
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
9 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Elliott v. ClementOregon Supreme Court· 1944-09-19· cited 29×
- Tamblin v. CrowleyWashington Supreme Court· 1917-11-23· cited 19×
- Santos v. SimonArizona Supreme Court· 1943-06-14· cited 17×
- Kupka v. ReidWashington Supreme Court· 1957-06-20· cited 14×
- Kofmehl v. SteelmanCourt of Appeals of Washington· 1996-01-09· cited 11×
- Okanogan Power & Irrigation Co. v. QuackenbushWashington Supreme Court· 1919-07-24· cited 11×
- Larson v. MurphyWashington Supreme Court· 1919-01-09· cited 6×
- Connor v. Spokane CountyWashington Supreme Court· 1917-04-20· cited 5×
- Craver v. WehrWashington Supreme Court· 1917-08-22· cited 2×
Cites
25 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- McMillen v. AndersonSupreme Court· 1877-10-22· cited 158×
- Williams v. PittockWashington Supreme Court· 1904-06-28· cited 38×
- Gustaveson v. DwyerWashington Supreme Court· 1914-02-28· cited 29×
- Merchants' & Manufacturers' Bank v. PennsylvaniaSupreme Court· 1897-05-24· cited 27×
- Hanson v. CarrWashington Supreme Court· 1911-11-28· cited 24×
- Rowland v. EskelandWashington Supreme Court· 1905-09-26· cited 22×
- Huber v. BrownWashington Supreme Court· 1910-03-25· cited 22×
- Savage v. AshWashington Supreme Court· 1915-06-12· cited 20×
- Lara v. SandellWashington Supreme Court· 1909-03-03· cited 19×
- Baylis v. KerrickWashington Supreme Court· 1911-08-03· cited 19×
- City of Ballard v. RossWashington Supreme Court· 1905-04-10· cited 16×
- Spokane Falls & Northern Railway Co. v. AbitzWashington Supreme Court· 1905-03-29· cited 16×
- Allen v. PetersonWashington Supreme Court· 1905-05-01· cited 15×
- Fleming v. StearnsWashington Supreme Court· 1912-01-23· cited 13×
- Hamilton v. WitnerWashington Supreme Court· 1908-11-07· cited 11×
- Pyatt v. HegquistWashington Supreme Court· 1907-02-27· cited 9×
- Wilson v. KorteWashington Supreme Court· 1916-04-28· cited 9×
- Olson v. JohnsWashington Supreme Court· 1909-11-17· cited 7×
- Rockwood v. TurnerWashington Supreme Court· 1916-01-20· cited 6×
- Radcliff v. HughesWashington Supreme Court· 1914-11-07· cited 4×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.