The Law Lion Logo - AI-powered legal writing assistantThe Law Lion
Home
Features
Pricing
Services
AboutBlogCasesContact
Login
Ask Law Lion AI
  1. Home
  2. >Cases
  3. >Herman F. Keller v. F. E. Davis
Washington Supreme Court

Herman F. Keller v. F. E. Davis

No. 13490·Judge: Holcomb·Attorney: Louis A. Dyar, for appellant., L. C. Jesseph, for respondents.6 citations

Table of Contents

  • Opinions
  • Opinions
  • Holcomb, J. Appellant began this action in June, 1915, to quiet title against...
  • Holcomb, J.

Table of Contents

  • Opinions
  • Opinions
  • Holcomb, J. Appellant began this action in June, 1915, to quiet title against...
  • Holcomb, J.

No summary available for this case.

Opinions

Holcomb, J.

Appellant began this action in June, 1915, to quiet title against a tax deed issued by the treasurer of Stevens county after judgment of foreclosure of certificate of delinquency on October 7, 1911.

Appellant averred that the judgment in foreclosure was utterly void for want of valid process, thus avoiding the treasurer’s deed; that respondents have never been in possession of the land, which is wild and vacant; that appellant, after execution of the tax deed, paid all general taxes since *337assessed against the land, thus retaining constructive possession of the land against the purchaser; and that tender of the amount paid for the certificate of delinquency, plus interest, had been refused by the purchasers of the tax deed. The court sustained a demurrer to appellant’s amended complaint upon the ground that the action is barred by the statute of limitations of such actions, Rem. 1915 Code, § 162, which is as follows:

“Actions to set aside or cancel the deed of any county treasurer issued after and upon the sale of lands for general, state, county or municipal taxes, or for the recovery of lands sold for delinquent taxes, must be brought within three years from and after the date of the issuance of such treasurer’s deed; Provided, this section shall not apply to actions not otherwise barred on deeds heretofore issued if the same be commenced within one year after the passage of this act.”

This case is manifestly governed by the reasoning and the rule announced in the cases of: Huber v. Brown, 57 Wash. 654, 107 Pac. 850; Baylis v. Kerrick, 64 Wash. 410, 116 Pac. 1082; Fleming v. Stearns, 66 Wash. 655, 120 Pac. 522; Savage v. Ash, 86 Wash. 43, 149 Pac. 325.

The action is barred. The judgment of the superior court is affirmed.

Morris, C. J., Main, and Parker, JJ., concur.

The Law Lion logoThe Law Lion.

The Law Lion is the only platform combining AI legal writing grounded in real case law with an expert human writing service — serving attorneys, paralegals, and everyday people nationwide.

info@thelawlion.com
Mon–Fri 9am–6pm EST · Rush available
Serving Clients Nationwide

AI Tool

  • → AI Legal Writing Tool
  • → AI Document Drafting
  • → Motion Drafting
  • → Contract Drafting
  • → Legal Research
  • → Case Law Search
  • → Citation Generator
  • → Document Review
  • → Contract Review
  • → For Lawyers

Writing Service

  • → Eviction Defense
  • → Court Documents
  • → Custody & Family
  • → Divorce Documents
  • → Debt & Collections
  • → All Writing Services

Top Guides

  • → Eviction Response Guide
  • → Best AI Legal Tools 2026
  • → Debt Validation Letter Guide

Company

  • → About The Law Lion
  • → Client Results
  • → Transparent Pricing
  • → Legal Guides & Blog
  • → Contact & Free Consult
  • → Affiliate Program

Top Services

  • → Eviction Notice Response
  • → Debt Validation Letter
  • → Court Summons Response
© 2026 The Law Lion LLC · AI Legal Writing & Expert Document Service
Privacy PolicyTerms of ServiceSitemap