The Port Gibson herald, and correspondent., 1849-04-13
Tax Sales. Important Decision.


relative to sales of land for taxes: !
Doe e. dem Hodge IS. Robert HTilsoa;-The
plaintiff in this case brought ejeetment for
land, and relied upon patent from the United
States The defendant relied on deed Of
Tax-eolector, dated April, 1911, the land
having been sold for taxes for the year 1913,
under the law, as it then stood. The statute
makes such deeds priaa faciG evidence that
the Tax-collector proceeded regularly in making
the sale BY due performance of all the preli-
minary steps 1t became necessary for the
plaintiff to rebut the prima faci9 title Of the
defendant, to prove that the collector had not
complied with the directions Of the statute re-
gulating sales for taxes. The collector stated
on trial in the court below that his usual Gus
tom in selling for taxes was to offer the land,
and ask will any one pay the whole Of the
taxes due, for lJt of so acres? If no one bid
! the amount Of the taxes due then he asked.
"will any one pay the amount Of the amount
Of The taxes due, for a quarter $eetion" If no
no bid was made, then he proceeded in the same
way, until the c4ols tract was offered toge.her
He said he had sold the land in dispute in this
case in that way.
Chief Justice SGrkey delivered the opinion
Of the Court, and ssid: But for this law the
statute Of 18ll,l th@collector would have been
left free to exercise his discretion; but this
law prescribes lilnt 1t is prohibitory in its
character Let us tke the first clause of the
act Of 1911, 38th section. "I'he collector
shall not sell in any one lot more than one
eighth Of section Here is the rule for the
government Of the sllector: the command to
him, and the limit Of his power. lie cannot
sell lot Of ereaif1 quantity, unless there be
some subsequent express authority autho-
rizing the sale Of q larger lot. Is there any
such authority! | think not. The nextclause
Of the section is, 4but if one lot will not sell
for the amount of faxes due, and the cost and
charges that shall hare accrued, as many lots
Of that quantity may be sold, as viii be sufli-
cient to pay the amount due" Now the cues
ton is does this latter clause authorize the col
lector, in any contingency, to increase the si.e
Of the III lie offers for sale! If one lot Will not
sell, can he add hat TO anot4er and sell blh fc-
geiher7 And, if 50, does he sell lot of
greater quantity than one eighth of section
or not! It seems TO me most obvious that. by
50 doing, he does sell a lot of greater quantity
than one-eighth Of a section, and thus violates
the law In the framing Of this section, the
workings of the Legislative mind are very
easily perceived: First, an unnecessary sacri-
fee of the property of the citizen must be
avoided, therefore, the collector shall sell but a
single lot al time; The balance is saved TO the
owner. But secondly, suppose one will not
sell for enough, then another lot Of the same
quantity must be sold. 1t seems manifest that
the Legislature supposed that no lot would be
offered that would not bring somethins: Hence
the law is silent as to the course to be pursued
when the first lot will not sell for any thing
1t certainly does not authorize TIE collector to
put it UP a se;ond time. and this he does by of
fering it nth tie nert lot."
= Then let Us suppose the owner of
the section of land TO be unable to pay the
taxes one-eighth Of the section is offered Ii
does not sell. Another is offered with the
like result and so on until il comes to the last,
which is valuable, and Of itself, viii bring
more than the amount Of taxes due TIE pur-
chaser thus gets the ulole section when one
eighth would have paid the taxes. Has the
collector sold more than was sufficient to pay
the amount due in such case? lie has, and,
it seems to me, that, under such a eonstruc-
ton Of the law the owner viii often be de-
Prved of his whole tract, when a small part
t would have brought enough" MY
construction of the law is, that the collector
must sell in lots of one eighth of section and
in no greater quantities Ii one will not sell,
: another must be offered, and so on, until the
whole has been offered in ssparae lots"
Judge Thacher said lie "could not agree
with the Chief Justice in his Interpretation of
the 58th section Of the statute of 1871, entitled
ian act to provide for tie revenue of the State.
and which provides as fellows: sand in making
such sales the collector shall not sell in any one
lot more than one-eighth Of section; but, if
one lot will not sell for the amount of taxes
due and the costs and charges that shall have
accrued, as many lots of that quantity may be
soldas will be sufficient to pay the amount due !;
and the collector may adjourn any such sale
from day to day, if necessary" Judge T. de-
eides that the first paragraph provides that the
collector shall not sell in any one lot more than
one-eighth of a section. The last clause makes
~ exception from the general provisions,
"llien IS II one lot will not bring the amount
- la&es due and the costs which shall have
accrued against the delinquent taxpayer, as
many lots Of that quantity may be sold as will
'e 6uilicient to pay the amount due. The lat
tsr Clause is clear exception to the 6rst. If a
. iot OF 90 acres be offered, and not sell
ior the amount Of taxes due from the delin-
queht tax-paye the collector is not required to
sttike on at whatever price may be offered,
put II is regarded by the statute as unsold; for
us language IS, +" if ono lot will not sell for the
amount OF taxes DUE" &c. The use of the
auxiliary verb "wi'' always imports futurity.
| and dpnotaS