Gold Hill daily news. [volume] (Gold Hill, N.T. [Nev.]) 1863-1882, 1864-03-31
Delinquent Tax Sales - Important
Decision.

The following decision OF Judge Ferris, of
the Probate Court OF Storey, will be read with
interest:
F Bnlgsr rs. E. Borrrs-This is au action Of
Eirctu.-nt brought BY plaintiff against defendant,
f5r the recovery of certain lot i'll the City OF Nir
c;uia particularly described in the complaint.
Plaintiff claims title TO the premises in coutrover'
~ under i deed executed by David Baily, Tax
Collector Of the CITY Of Virginia, bearing date
Iuiy Goth, lStSI. purporJing TO have been execu'
tel on the sale Of the property for delinquent
taxes ,,ss,.s.,i for the scal year ending Septem'
ber2iIh, lS52.
This deed was offered in evidence by plaintiff
in slppor: Of his riSh: 10 a recovery. aud was OBJ
fcc,c,; 10 by defendant for the following reasons
FirSf-Aithough the Tax Collectors deed made
primo t,cie evidence of title, The rcCitals in the
deed mus, show that the prercquities of the law
have been complied with.
.eccud-The recttals in the deed offered in evil
dence fail to show compliance with the require
ments OF the law. in the following particulars;
Fi-st-Thr grantor describes himself i'll said
deed as David Baily. Tax Collector Of the City OF
Virginia. acting by virtue OF an ordinance OF the
Board Of Aldermen Of said city. whereas The ordt-
nance exhibit 81 rs his authority for making sail
dael is an oI..iaGrce OF the Board Of Trustees OF
said city.
S-ccnd-It appears from the rocitals in said deed
tina, the lot in question was assessed 10 one E. H.
Hubbard. and under such N assessment The inter.
est Of defendant Bowers could not be sold The
ordinance shown mo. ls) did not authorize an as
sssSInrRt to unknown owners, and no interest
could be sold under the provisions of this ordi-
nance. excepting the interest OF the person in
whose name the property was assessed.
Third-It docs not appear from the recitals in
the deed that ;he notice Of sale was published for
ten DAYS in the Territorial! Enterprise, as was re-
guired BY said ordinance.
Fourth-rhe deed does not show what the
amount of TIL taxes on the properly was.
The following are the facts found by the Court
1t appears from IN examination of the deed Of
fred in evidence, and made the foundation Of
Plaintiff title. that the above objections are all
we'll taken. The Tax Collector recites in said
deed that he acts under a certain ordinance Of the
Board Of Aldermen pfthe City Of Virginia, passed
Nav 10th. AID 1861, when iG fact there was no
such Board in existence until long subsequent 10
that time and when in fact K appears from the
ordinance offered in evidence with the deed, that
the same WAS passed by the Board of Trustees.
1t also appears from the recltals in said deed
that the lot sued for was assessed 10 f. IL. Hub
bard. and not to the defendant. Said deed also
fails TO show publication Of the delinquent list in
the Territorial Enterprise rs was required by said
ordinance.
The said deed also fails to show the amount Of
taxes for which the property was sold
The foregoing facts having been established in
evidence and found by the Court "a jury having
been waived BY both partic=,) the Court finds. Us
a conclusion Of law therrfrOm. that the said Tux
Collector deed is not admissible in evidence in
support of plaintiffs tile. The objection made
thereto On behalf of the defendant, are sustained
the deed excluded, and Judgment for defendant.
signed. J.. W. FERRIS,
Judge Probate Court Storey County. n. It.