Case ID: tyl_2/html/0466-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Sed per Curiam.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jonathan Parker, Junior, against Bixby and Osgood.
    
      Vermont stat. vol. 2. p. 231.
    When the sheriff, as collector of taxes in an unorganized township, sets forth in his deed, “ that he hath in all things proceeded according to law," it will be always be received as prima facie evidence that he hath proceeded legally in all matters relating to the sale of land for the non-payment of taxes, where a special record is not made necessary by statute.
    EJECTMENT for lands, in Brandon.
    
    General issue pleaded, and put to the Jury.
    In support of his title, the plaintiff offered a deed from Abraham Ives, sheriff, and ex officio collector of State taxes in unorganized towns, conveying the lands in question to the plaintiff’s. ancestor for neglect of payment of a State tax, granted October 21, 1783, the deed dated November 1, 1784, conveying the whole rights of William Shattuck and two others.
    An objection was taken to the reading of the deed, and reliance was had on the 3d section of the addional act, passed March 9th, 1784. “ And whereas it may be more convenient to sell so much of each delinquent proprietor’s right or share as will pay the proportion of such delinquent’s tax and attending charges : Therefore, be it enacted by the authority aforesaid, that those persons who are by law appointed collectors of the land-tax, granted by this assembly in October last, where they can ascertain the names of the original proprietors in any town, subject to said tax, be, and they are hereby directed to sell so much of each original right on which the said tax shall not be paid, beginning with the undivided, if any there be, as will raise a sum of money sufficient to pay said tax on such right and attending charges, passed the 9th day of March, 1784.
    It was urged by the defendants’ counsel, that the sheriff, as collector, had no power to vend whole 
      
      rights of land, until he had first sold the undivided land, if any there were, and that the deed should have shown that there were no undivided lands in the township of Brandon, and therefore that the sheriff had proceeded to vend the whole rights.
    
      Daniel Chipman and Darius Chipmañ, for the plaintiff.
   Sed per Curiam.

The sheriff sets forth in his deed, that he hath in- all things proceeded according to law, and this has always been received as prima facie evidence that he had proceeded legally in all matters relating to. the sale of lands for non-payment of taxes, where a special record is not made necessary by statute. The Court consider, that former decisions on this point will include the present question, and that the onus probandi lies on the defendants to show that the sheriff proceeded illegally to vend these whole rights.

Let the deed be read to the Jury.

-, for defendants.