The Potter journal. [volume] (Coudersport, Pa.) 1857-1872, 1864-06-22


Money is so 4bupdant that cur citizens
are seeking safe investments for it In all
quarters and real estate especially is In
demand We have had numerous in
quiries as to the title to "unseated lands"
in Pennsylvania, acquired by tax sales
made in conformity with the laws of the
Commonwealth. We have therefore,
had prepared the following summary Of
points decided by the Supreme Court
which define very clearly the nature and
value of such titles where the proceedings
have been regular.
When unseated land, which is the sub
ject of taxation, is sold for taxes, the title
of the owner, whatever 1t may be, passes
to the purchaser, whether it be assessed
| In his name, in the name Of the @arrantee,
or of stranger and whether the person
In whose name it is assessed has or has
not any title. Strauch We. Shoemaker l
Watts L Sergeant, l66.
A sale of uhseated land for taxes, vests
the title when regularly made, in the
vendee, to the exclusion of all claimants
to tbs land of prior date. Caul VS..
Spring, 2 Watts, 1876.
Where a piece of land is taxed, and
sold for ncn- payment of tax, it is imma-
teria who was the owner Collins VS..
Barclay 7 Barr, 67.
a sale by the commissioners is a sale
by owners, and the purchaser is not bound
to show anything but his deed. Huston
vs.. Fostor l Watts, ATT, reaffrmed in
Kirkpatrick VS. Mathiot W. aud S. 254.
Where uuseated land is sold at Treas
urer's sale, and bought by the Commits
sioners, an absolute aud unqualified title
is acquired after FIVE years. Fitzpatrick
VS.. Mathiot, 4 w & S %.
The act of 1915 applies as well to sales
to tie Commissioners as individuals after
FIVE years have expired, therefore without
rede ption the Commissioners bold abso-
lutely, and it is not necessary for them to
prove that the directions of the law have
been complied with. Peter VS.. Heasely
10 Watts, 208.
If land is assessed. though irregularly,
the sale is good if it is assessed by the
assessor of a different township, the pur-
chaser is protected. Huber VS.. Keiser
2 P l. W. 1876.
No action can be brought for the recov-
cry of land sold by the Treasurer for taxes
after five years from the delivery Of the
deed, whether the proceedings are regu.
lar or irregular aud whether the pur-
chaser has entered or not. Harfish VS.
Stephens 5 S & r 29S. Modified by
Sheck VS. McElroy & Harris 81.
A sale of uuseated lands for taxes Will
pass the title, though assessed in a wrong
name or by wrong number, if otherwise
designated, SO as to be capable of ideuti-
6cation, and the designation will be sufi-
cient, if it affords the means Of identi-
cation and do not positively mislead the
owner. Woo6sido vs. Wilson s Casey 80.
Replevin cannot be maintained by the
owner against the purchaser for timber
between the time OF sale and that OF re-
demption. Cromellon VS.. Brink ) Ca
sey, 422.
The record of the acknowledgment of
Treasurer's deed for unseated laad Kept
in the Court of Common Pleas, when the
deed itself is lost, is evidence Of the ex-
istence of .he deed ReinbOth Vs. Zerbe
Run Improvement Co, 5 Casey l49.
A Treasurers sale for taxes Of part
of tract of land, aud conveyance of
that part, designating the quantity, but
not the locality, is good, and an unre-
stricted choice Of locality tothe purchaser,
is necessary iDcident of the sale. Coke
VS.. Blanden, | Watts 533.
A Sale by the Commissioners is ire.
deemable. Sec. 9th Of the act Of 18th
March, 1915; Purdon's 99S.