Ottumwa weekly courier. (Ottumwa, Wapello County, Iowa) 1872-1899, 1873-05-29
IMPoRTAxT TAX TITLE DECIsroN
From the Des Moines Republican,

IMPORTANT TAX TITLE DECISION
lF'rom the Des Moines Republican
In the United States Circuit Court
yesterday, the trial of the cause of A
| N. Lancaster va. Lucius ID. Fisher wa
commenced. The suit was an actor
Of right brought for the recovery of ,
quarter section of land i'm Grundy
county. The plaintiff claimed under
patent title; the defendant under {
tax title. Judge Dillon and Love
both sat upon the trial Of the cause.
Col. C. A. Clark, of Webster City
appeared for the plaintiff, and Col. G
H. Catch, Of Des Moines, for the
plaintiff.
Yesterday afternoon was consumed
by the testimony and argument Of
counsel.
This morning his honor, Judge
Dillon, gave to the jury the following
instruction, asked for by plaintiffs
counsel:
In. tax sales, perfect freedom from
all influences likely to prevent compe-
tition should in all cases be strictly ex-
acted. The utmost good faith should
be observed, and the necessary severi-
| ty Of the law should notbc increased, by
combinations of any sort among the
bidders or purchasers, whereby the
land owner is deprived Of his entire
estate for mere nominal sum, when
perhaps the larger portion might be
saved TO him by competition at the
sale. sfs. fs.s 5.s.s
Such an unlawful combination oc-
ours where purchasers ct the same
sale all purchase through one individ-
ual as their agent; for It is obvious
that mo- competition can exist under
circumstances of this kind. If you
find, therefore, that the purchasers of
the land in controversy, in common
with other bidders and purchasers,
werc represented ct the sale at which
the land was struck Off 10 them, by
one common agent, who bid the land
in thoutcompetiti0n, this was legal
ii not moral fraud upon the then
owner Of the land, which would inva-
lidate the sale as to the purchaser
thereat, and the title in the hands of
such purchaser, or one claiming under
him with actual or constructive notice
of the fraud, the title would be invalid
and Intellectual upon such fraud being
shown.
The land in controversy appears to
have been sold at an adjournment of
the tax sale begun on the first Mon
day of November, 1862. In order to
warrant o sale of the land at such ad-
journed sale, which was held on the
2Sth day Of Februrry, 1868, the regu-
lar annual sale must have been adj
journed from time to time by q con-
nected series of adjournments, up to
said day when the land in controversy
was sold; and notices Of snch ad-
journment must have been posted by
the treasurer as required by law 9TH
erwise land owners would not know
in what time they could pay their
taxes and prevent the sale Of their
lands, and purchasers could not know
when the lands would be offered, and
no competition could exist. The tax
deed is no more than prima facia evi.
daeee that tive s.rs ives .nad at . rexu-
lArly adjourned eale, because the treas.
urer has no jurisdiction to sell except
at the regular annual sale, or some ad.
journment thereof, and sale at any
other time would be illegal and void.
If the jury find that the land in
controversy was sold on the 2Sth day
of February, 1868, at what purported
to be an adjournment Of the sale of
1862, and that before the 2Sth day of
February, 1863, the treasurer had adj
journed, and posted q notice of ad-
jonrnment of said sale of 1862, to the
Sthday of December, 1864, then the
sale Of February, 2Sth, 1868, was hold
without any authority of law, and a
deed or deeds based upon such sale
would be Intellectual, and would not
protect the defendant in this suit If
the plaintiff has made out a legal title
but for such tax deed or deeds. And
this would be true although the treas
erer adjourned TO December Sth, 1864,
by inadvertance of clerical error, for
the reasons before stated, that pur-
chasers and the land owners could not
know what the intention of the treas
urer was as to the time to which a
sale stood adjourned, but must neces-
sarily be governed oy .ne hollce OF
W The laws If Iowa nrayido that in NO
case shall q treasurer adjourn tax
safe 1or more tnan " uays. IN .nis ~
law, and would have no Jurisdiction
If E more u, % than 6o davs were covered hy
the adjournment oi the last preceding
sale.