The weekly union record., 1865-09-16
Tax Titles.

1t has often beel a mooted question among
lawyers whether mere claim to public land
could be assessed and sold for Delinquent
taxes. 1t is of some Importance to our com.
munity. as many of our town lots 10 this
county, which are valuable, have been assessed
and sold, and more remain to be sold for de
liuquent taxes. The Supreme Court of this
State has just passed upon the question, and
decided that such land can be taxed, and sold
for taxes. We give the decision below 10 the
case of Rider VS.. Miller:
This is an action to recover certain lots of
land situate in the city of Sacramento. Plain
tiff alleges title and an CUSTER Defendant,
after denying the allegations of the complaint,
sets up the statute of limitations, aud alleges
title in himself Plaintiff introduced tax
deed executed 10 pursuance of a sale for taxes
for the fiscal year $4,000, and proved the
possession of defendant for eleven years prior
to the commencement of the suit The
defendant proved that during the time of bis
possession of the premises he was Claiming
the same as United States Government lands .
This last proof of claiming the same as Gov
eminent lands was admitted under objection
and exception ou the part of the plaintiff on
the ground that the evidence was inadmissibe
under the answer, and immateral, 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 part Of the public
domain or not
The second finding of the Court is as fol
lows: THAT the land in dispute and described
in said deed is part of the public domain
and Is the property of the Government of the
United States" And the Court finds as con
illusions of law:
"First-The premises 10 controversy in Ibis
action, being public land are not subject to
taxation, under the laws of the United States
or of this State
"Second-The only title claimed by plaintiff
in this case being based upon Sheriff's deed
for taxes. and the land claimed being part oil
the public domain, be has shown no right to
said land, and no right to recover 10 this
action"
I Judgment was therefore rendered for defen-
dant.
Plaintiff moved for new trial on The
ground, among others. that the evidence was
insufficient to sustain the finding, that the land
IN question is part OF the public domain.
And we think it insufficient in this respect
For the purpose of taxation there Is no pre-
sumption 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 part of the public domain, aud not
subject to taxation. Possession is evidence Of
title. TIE tax deed is by statute made ~prima
facie evidence of title in the grantee" Ii the
lands were not in fact subject to taxation, this
is an exception to the general rule, and the
party relying upon the exception must, under
the statute, show afirmatvely that be is within
it. Being 10 the possession Of the land aud
prima facie the owner, il it is 10 fact public
land, and therefore not subject TO taxation, be
must show il; aud testimony that the party is
merely claiming the same as United States
Government land" is insufficient to overthrow
the prima facie case made by the possession
and the deed. This being the only testimony
on the point. the evidence in our opinion, is
Insufficient to sustain the finding upon which
the Judgment is based.
There does cot seem to be any question OF
the sufhcieucy of the tax deed. The respon,
dent has not thought proper 10 file any brief,
or points, and We have therefore decided the
case without any aid from counsel on that side.
Judgment reversed and new trial ordered.
SvYwYEs. j.
We concur: SASpERsoN, C. J.
SHAFTER j.