Gold Hill daily news. [volume] (Gold Hill, N.T. [Nev.]) 1863-1882, 1865-08-01
Tax TITLES,

1t has been a mooted question among
lawyers whether q mere claim to public
land could be assessed and sold for delin.
quent taxes. 1t is of some importance to
our community, as many Of our city and
town lots in this county, which are yalu-
able have been assessed and sold, and more
remain to be sold for delinquent taxes.
The Supreme Court of California has just
passed upon that question, and decided
that such land can be taxed and sold for
taxes. The following is the decision in
the case Of Rider vs.. Miller, in Califor-
MIA
This is an action to recover certain lots
of land situate in the city OF Sacramento.
Plaintiff alleges title an custer. Defend
ant, after denying the allegations Of the
complaint, sets up. the statute Of limita
tions, and alleges title in himself. Plain
tiff introduced a tax deed executed in pur-
suance of a sale for taxes for the fiscal
year l860-60, and proved the possession
Of defendant for eleven years prior to the
commencement of the suit. The defend
ant proved that during the time of his
possession of the premises he was " claim
ing the same as United States Govern
ment lands" This last proof OF claiming
the same as Government lands was adj
mitted under objection and exception on
the part of the plaintiff, on the ground
that the evidence "was inadmisMble under
the answer, and immaterial, and not even
tending to show, that it was Government
land" This is all the evidence on the
question as to whether the, land was a part
Of the public domain. or not.
|. The second finding of the Court is as
follows: THAT the land in dispute and
described in said deel is Q part Of the pub
lie domain and is the property of the Gov
eminent Of the United States" And the
| Courts finds as conclusions Of law:
'First-The premises in controversy in
this action, being public land, are not sub
ject to- taxation, under tho laws OF the
United States or Of this State.
"Second-The only title claimed by
plaintiff in this case being based upon a
Sherifs deed for taxes, and the land
claimed being a parto Of the public domain.
he has shown no right to said land, and
no right to recover in this action"
Judgment wa therefore rendered for
defendant.
Plaintiff moved for a new trial on the
ground, among others, that the evidence
was insufficient to sustain the finding, that
the land in question is q part Of the public
domain. And we think It insufficient in
this respect. For the purpose of taxation
there is no presumption Of law that land
in occupation Of private parties, assessed
as private property in due form by the
proper officers, and sold for taxes, is q
part of the public domain, and not sub
iect to taxation. Possession is evidence
| of title. The tax deed is by statute made
" prims facie evidence Of title in the gran
tee." If the lands were not in fact sub
iect to taxation, this is an exception to the
general rule, and the party relying upon
the exception must, under the statute,
show afirmatively that he is within it.
Being in the possession Of the land and
prima facie the owner, If it is in fact public
land, and therefore not subject to x
| ton, he must show it and testimony that
the party is merely claiming the same as
| United States Government land" is in
sufficient to overthrow the prima facie
case made by the possession and the deed.
This being the only testimony on the
point, the evidence l n u opinion, is in
sufficient to sustain the finding upon which
the judgment is based.
There does not seem to be any question
on the s~ufiency of the tax deed. The
respondent has not thought proper 10 Rlc
any brief, or points, and we have there
fore decided the case without any aid from
| counsel on that side.
Judgment reversed and new trial Or
| dered. SAWYER, J.
We c SANDERsoN, G. ].
SHAPrBR, J.