Clarksville weekly chronicle. (Clarksville, Tenn.) 1873-1890, 1873-08-09
IMPORTANT DECISION.
Tax Sales Can OnIy be Made Under the
Law Of 1875, All Others H4y. u
ing Raen RaDealed.

LII OAsA nv DEOAoAVNs
Tax Sales Can OnIy be Made Under the
Law Of 1878, All Others HSy. II
ing Been Repealed.
So Says Our supreme Court-A Douc-
ment Of ,Yalre to All Our Tax.
8 Payers. = e
EDITORS APPEAL: II is known to
several members of the Bar that we
have a copy of the opinion of the
Supreme Court of Tennessee, deliv-
cred by Freeman, Judge at the late
April term, 1873, at jackson, upon the
subject of the collection of taxes, and
the sales Of lands therefor. At the
request of a number of these gentle
men, we send it to you for publication.
Respectfully, 49, -,
HAYNES & STOCKTON.
James NJ. McKree VS.. Heirs of Sugars Nc
Lemore.
This is a motion to condemn a tract
Of land, and order the same to be sold
upon the report of the tax-collector
made to the Circuit Court of Mad
ison County. The only question
presented before us, which we propose
to beside, is the single one made by the
Circts;t Judge, who refused to condemn
the land, because he held that the law
under which it was asked had. been re-
pealed, BY which we understand him
to rule that
oa THE ASSESSMENT ACT FOR 1873,
section eight, repeats all former laws
for the sale Of land for taxes, and pro-
vides new mode of making such sales,
not only for taxes that accrued after
the passage of the law, but those due
before its passage. The question is,
was he correct in so doing? BY the
sixty-frst section of the act of 1873 it
is provided, That in all cases where
taxes remain due and unpaid on the
first day of June of the year following
the year for which the taxes are due,
the tax-collector shall make out COM
plete list, etc; and then proceeds, in
the balance of the section and succee-
ding section, to point out, with partic-
ularity, the mode of proceeding in
sales. By section eighty it is enacted,
".That all acts and parts of acts upon
the sub ject of assessment and
collection of taxes and sale of
land for taxes, in conflict with
the provisions of this act, and all
other acts in conflict with the pro-
visions of this act, be and the
same are hereby repealed" 1t is GER
tain that the taxes of 1872 remaining
due and unpaid on the first day of
June, 1873, are included in the Ian
guage of section sixty-one Of the above
act of 1873. We can see no principle
of law by which it can be held that
the mode of enforcing the 81 n11fh
COLLECTION OF DEBT DUE THE STATE
.sr,a FOR TAXES sr
becomes irreparable. We are familiar
with the principle that the substantial
remedy provided by law at the time of
the creation of the debt, cannot be so
taken away or changed, as to defeat or
impair the right of the creditor TO en-
force a contract entered into But we
do not see that this principle has APP
plicatiOn to this case. The creditor
does not complain that his right to his
debt has been impaired, nor do we think
such complaint could be made even
in case it was a private creditor, while
ar equally efficient and substantial
remedy was provided by law. Be this
as it may, and we do not definitely de-
eide how this is, it is, az we think,
certain that the eightieth section,
which we have cited, repeats all laws
for the collection of taxes, and sales of
land fer taxes, from and after its pas
sage, and no court can properly make
any sale under former statutes, for,
being repealed, with no saving clause
as to taxes accruing before the passage,
they stand as if they never existed
have been taken from the statute books,
as laws, and have no binding force
whatever, and as matter of course
cannot be administered or enforced by
the courts ia-
THE LEGISLATIVE WILL ~
is distinctly and unequivocally de-
clared, and is conclusive upon all,
that such laws are repealed. In the
cases of Queen VS.. Inhabitants of Dem
ton, IA Eng. Law and Eq., r. III,
Lord Campbell states the law to be,
that the general rule is that repealed
statute cannot be acted upon after it
is repealed, but that with regard to all
matters that have taken place under it
before the repeal, they remain valid
and cannot be questioned. He says
1T is said that there is a difference
between the case where the repeating
act affects the substance of the pro-
ceeding and where it affects only the
form, but [ don't think any such |
distinction can be made, as a matter of
course The repeal of the former
statutes has no influence on orders of
sale made for taxes before the date of
the repeal, but such
SALES WILL BE VALID AND BINDING
if done in pursuance of the law in
force at the time such judgments were
entered The principle was applied
by the Court of Appeals of New York,
in the celebrated case of Mrs. Harting,
in p n. Y. Rep. Sc, to the discharge
of party convicted of the most afro
cious murder, because of the repeal of
the law inficting capital punishment.
The same principle has been applied
in several other cases of like charac-
ter. See Kunckler VS. State, 2 Am L.
Reg, 43; Brothers VS.. State, 2 Cald-
well. These were criminal eases, but
we are aware of no difference in the
principle as applied to criminal and
civil cases. Without citing further
our conclusion is that the /
only law now in force under which
tax sale can be made is the law of 1873,
all others being expressly repealed by
the eightieth section of said act, and
therefore his Honor was correct in his
Affirm the judgment.
FREEMAN, Judge.
THE canvass in Virginia promises to
be one of unusual interest and ex-
element. The rather mixed condi-