Buchanan County bulletin. [volume] (Independence, Iowa) 1869-1891, 1872-11-01
Important Tax Title Decision.

The case of A. N. Lancaster VS..
Lucius d. Fisher in the United
States Circuit Court was tried at
the last May Term, A. D. 1872, be-
fore His Honor Judge Love. 1t was
an action ofriyht brought to recover
certain land in Grundy county.
On the trial'it appeared in evil
dcnce that tho .snd had been sold
for taxes to person who after he
got a tax deed, sold the land to the
defendant. Then the plaintiff
brought the original or patent title
and commenced this suit to recover
the land. The evidence showed
that there was fraudulent combi-
nation or ring among the bidders at
the tax sale, and that the tax sale
was fraudulent, and SO the jury
found by their verdict. But the
plaintiff did not prove that he had
paid all the taxes due on the land
0, rendered the taxes for which the
land had been sold. Thereupon the
Court held by Sec. 1884 of the Re
vision, the payment of such taxes
was a condition precedent to the
commencement Of an action to
"question" the tax title, and that
Notwithstanding the fraud In the
tax sale, the plaintiff could not re-
cover; and directed a judgment for
the defendant.
The Court also decided that mas
much as the defendant had pur-
chased the land in good faith, with
out knowing the fraud, at the tax
sale, his title was good, and would
be sustained in preference to the
original title, even if the plaintiff
had rendered all taxes before he
commenced the suit.
The plaintiffs counsel then NOV
ed for new trial, which was re-
fused. He then appealed from the
decision of Judge Love, and APP
piled to the court in full bench, to
set aside the Judgment and grant q
new trial.-Octobcr 23d, 1872, tho
cause was ably argued for the plain
tiff by Mr.. Clark and J. S. Polk,
and for the defendant by G. II.
Catch, before Judge Dillon and
Judge Love, and yesterday the de-
cision of the Court was announced,
affirming and fully sustaining the
opinion of the Court made on tie
trial, and holding that in no event
could the plaintiff commence an
action to set aside tax title with
out first paying the taxes; that ten
der Of a--.,..,.s.--.-s,iit is brought
would avail nothing; that the statu-
te was perem2,to1y, il must be done
before the tax title could be "ques-
toned" and this provision was
highly equitable.
The Court also held that a frandu-
lent tax title was not absolutely
void, but only voidable, and if the
tax title purchaser sells the tax title
to third person, who buys it with
out knowing Of the fraudulent sale,
he is n bonaiide purchaser, and his
title will be preferred and protected
in preference to that of tho original
owner, who by his neglect and de.
fault omitted or refused to pay his
taxes, which it was his duty to do.
1t follows from this decision that
as y fraudulent tax deed is not void,
but simply voidable, it cannot be
set aside or avoided in an action Of
right or at law, but the suit must be
commenced in equity for that pur-
pose, and before the taxtitlc is sold
to bonatide purchaser. These
points have never been directly
raised or decided in the State courts
and are highly important, but arc in
harmony with the tenor and spirit
of the decisions of our State courts.
There seems now but very little if
any chance to set aside q tax title,
and it behooyes every owner Of
land to examine his tax receipts and
see that he has paid his taxes.-pes
Moines Republican,