Grant County herald. [volume] (Lancaster, Wis.) 1850-1968, 1861-03-21
Recovering Pay for Improve
anents~ITax Sale Law a Good
Ho1ne~taad Law.

the March Term Of Court involving in Q
collateral way the tax title question. There
hang doubts around and over the holder OF
a claim under tax deed, especially in cases
where such holder makes no improvements
on land SO held. Where he makes i'm
proyements, his title may still not be clear
and cloudless. though Miller's Court--and
our Supreme Court have both appeared to
hold the tax law good and recognize tax
titles as perfect in such cases. Judge
Cothren does not hold tax deeds to DO
good, even though the holder has i'm
proved and taken possession of property.
So long as courts can be found to discredit
taA titles to lands improved and in posses
sion Of holders, SO long may tax titles be
said to be imperfect But to the question
involving in collateral way this question
of most interest to the holders of tax
claims on which they have made improve
ments Can they recover pay for improve
ments
In the two cases alluded TO which came
before our court at the October and March
terms, Judge Cothren gave his opinion
that the present mode Of enforcing the
payment Of taxes by sale Of the lands is in
violation Of that provision Of the Consti-
tuition of the United States which says
mo person shall be deprived Of property
without due process of law" He also
held that payment Of taxes can only be en-
forced BY first obtaining judgment in the
court, and therefore in his opinion our
present system Of tax-sales conveys no title
whatever. But, that any person going into
possession Of lands under tax deed, be-
lieving be has title thereby, and improv7
ing the land, may recover from the owner
the value Of the improvements under
Statute.
In the cases referred to, heirs of Parish
against Eager, aud heirs of Parish against
Blair, the defendants or holders Of land
under tax deed, recovered judgments for
the value of Improvements, the fullest value
at that. This Of course is equivalent to
perfect title through tax deed, as the in
stances are rare indeed where any farm
property viii sell for cost Of Improvements
especially when the witnesses who testify
to the value of improvements and the
jurors who give the verdict arc all farmers,
as they ought to be.
In case formerly tried in the Supreme
Court, the decision was, that the present
mode Of compelling payment Of taxes BY
sale Of land is Constitutional and that pos
session under tax deed for three years cuts
off al. right to prosecute suit for the recov-
cry e land SO held under tax deed. Of
course this is the supreme law and oyerrides
Cothren's decision.
Taking the laws and decisions Of courts
into consideration, with the privilege Of re-
covering pay for Improvements, va hold
that the tax sale law is first rate home
stead lau. The fact that the holder of
original title can recover possession ID no
disadvantage, for the holder under tax deed
can recover for improvements more than
lands and improvements will sell for, and
by this means he will sweep the property.
The poor man, by raising $500 or$lo.00,
can purchase of the county tax deed to
40 or so acre tract of good land; the con-
ditions are that he shall occupy and i'm
prove the land, and if he hold uninterrupted
possession for three years, the property is
bis beyond any doubt; but if the original
owner bring suit inside of three years,
then the holder under tax title can recover
what the improvements are worth, which
is more than anybody will pay for land
and improvements; consequently the hold
er under tax-title will win tie property,
lock, stock and BARREL A better ao..Ie-
stead law-one beset with fewer impedi-
ments and one which is a terror to specula-
tors instead of being open for'lem to drive
in on every side anu ;;urn out thepoor man
in possession, cannot be expected from Con-
gresa.
Grant County owns from 100000 to
$4,000 worth Of tax lands, principally the
property Of land spectators, and much
thereof the best in the county. Any part
or all such property can be had for thepast
taxes and Understanding from Is cents
per acre up to $1.00 per acre. So far as
known, Miller's court, which IS the king Of
terrors to poor men, has already decided
even more favorably forthe occupant under
tax title than the Supreme Court, 50 that
the law may be set down as good enough