Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1867-02-26
". G. Cazenove VS. Portuer & Rocker.

which was sold by the Commissioners Of the
Direct Tax in Virginia, by virtue OF the act OF
Congress, passed August 5th, 1861, and the
acts, amendatory thereof passed June Ith,
1862, and February, 1868. The parties IN this
case haveagreed upon statement OF facts, ana
waving jury, by consent, have submitted the
matter to the Court Tor Its Judgment. Inc
facts agreed are substantially, that the PLAIN
tiff in 1861, was seized in fec OF he property;
that he has never conveyed it either IN whole
| or in part, but that the defendants IN 1861 ell
| tered the said premises, and have ever since
held possession thereof that by virtue of the
act Of Congress, approved August 5,h 1861,
entitled an act to provide increased revenue,
&C. and the act approved June 18th, 1862, en-
titled an act for the collection of direct tax IN
the insurrectionary districts, and the act amen
datory thereof, passed in February, 1868, j.
Hawkshurst and others were appointed board
of commissioners for the State Of Virginia i;
that they were duly appointed and qualified,
| and that on the l4th September, 1868, entered
upon the discharge of their duties that the
| said board on the l4th September 1862 fixed
| the amount of tax charged upon said property
at 1880: that the taxes charged upon said
| property we're not paid within sixty days from
| the time the amount of said tax was fixed BY
| the Commissioners, as provided tor IN the third
section of act of Congress of 1862: that there
upon the said Commissioners caused the land
to be duly advertised, giving notice of the time
and place of said sale as required by SAID acts,
and that pursuant to said notice, the SAID Com
miSsioners caused the said property to be sold
on the 10Th January, 1864. in accordance With
| the said law, to the highest bidder, and that
! the defendants became the purchasers at the
price of s.: that the defendants paid the
| amount of the purchase money, and received
from the Commissioners the certificate OF sale,
as directed by the act, and that thereupon they
took possession, and still hold it; that on the
- day of ---, 1864, after the prop
erty had been advertised for sale, butabetore it
was offered for sale, John P. Agnew, then he
ing in possession Of the property, but BOT nn-
der any agreement with the owner Tor Snch
possession in order to rescue the property
from sale, aud upon his own motion, having no
| authority unless subsequently conferred, ten
dered to the Commissioners the full amount
of the tax, penalty, interest aud costs levied,
charges due or in any wise accrued on,
and against said property under the sail acts
| of Congress; that the amount was less than
$40, and that the property sold by The Com
missioners consists of valuable dwelling house,
| fronting on St. Asaph street, Of an adjoining
vacant lot frontlog on the same street, AMI used
| in conjunction with said dwelling, as y part Of
| the dwelling lot; that the said lot could have
| been separated from the residue OF the proper,
| ty, and could have been sold for lnore than
| sufficient to pay the said amount OF tax penal
ty, interest and costs that the property was
described as a house corner Of DIXIE and St.
A ph streets, said to belong to W. G. Gaze
nove-valuation, $; tax Sl3 so; that I'M
der the aforesaid certificate from the Commits
sioners the defendants also claim ana occupy q
detached lot. fronting on Washington street,
and separated from the aforesaid house and lnt
by an intervening alley, and an intervening lot
not belonging to said CaZenove, but that said
detached lot was included in the valuation
made upon the Land Books Of Alexandria
county, for the year 1860; that said detached
lot might have been separated from the residue
of the property. without prejudice 10 it, and
have been sold for more than sufficient to pay
the tax, penalty, interest, costs, and all eXpen-
ces with which the property was charged
1t cannot be disputed that according to the
principles Of the common law, all power over
ones estate must be voluntarily created by the
owner threof. No estate could be Givcscd by
the mere operation Of law, and against the will
Of the owner, except in the instance of forfeit
IRE for high treason, and then only by the
judgment OF competent Judicial ulounai,-
In nodern tiucs involuntary alterations have
become frequent, as the situation AID necessi
ties OF the country have demanded The
power to levy and collect taxes, is now received
as princi pie Of universal constitutional law,
as belonging to government, and as incident to
its sovereignty. The Constitution Of. the Uu-
ted States bestoTs by express grant upon Con
gresS the power to levy taxes, and!rcquires a
direct tax to be laid, io proportion to the cen.
sus of the several States, and no one dlssents,
that as the interests or the wants Ct the gov
ernmeut demand, his property should be held
to contribute to the common burdens ct the
government. The power, however, to sell real
estate, says Judge Mclean, in Bentley vs.
Kn)wles, Peters 1872, is a high prcrogatlve,
and should never be exercised in doubtful cases,
and more especially should there be the ex-
tremest caution, when the power is exclusively
and directly derived from a statute, without any
other agency or the action Of any judicia! tri-
bunal In such cases the agent that is en;rust.
ed with this power of sale, exercises a mere
naked special authority, derived from the mere
ctter of the law, and the validity Of his acts
depends upon strict aud literal compliance
with the law authorizing the sale Chief JUS
tice Marshall, in Thacher vs.. Powell. Wheat
on ll9, says: THAT no individual or public
officer can sell and conway good title TO the
land of another, unless authorized to DO SO by
express law, is ooe oshhosc self evident prop
ositobs TO which the mind assents without hes
itation, and that the person invested with such
power must pursue with precision the course
prescribed by law or his act. is invalid, is a
principle which has been repeatedly recognized
in this court 1t may then be assumed as an
incontrovertible proposition, that when src-
cial authority is delegated by statute to partic
ular persons, whereby the property and rights
of others may be affected against their will,
the course prescribed by law must be strictly
pursued, and appear to be SO, upon all their
proceedings, or the power is not we'll and truly
executed. And lastly, says Bladeweil, in his
valuable treatise upon tax titles, page 46, when
statute makes an innovation upon the estab-
lished principles of the common law, it must
be Strictly construed in all cases Thus in every
view the rules of the common law, in relation
to special and naked powers, and summary pro-
ceedings, are peculiarly applicable to those oth