The Daily clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1866-1888, 1878-01-09

those irregularities which the courts are en-
Joined by the Constitution TO disregard
But we need not go so lar as tnas. Ior lne
the advertisement shall invalidate the sale
of any land on which the taxes have not
been paid.
1t could hardly be doubted, in view Of the
provision of the Constitution quoted, that
this is valid legislation. R I
The statute fixes day for the sale of de-
lands, and it may we'll be supposed
that if the owner has made no provision for
payment OF his taxes, that he is aware that
they will be sold, aud Of the time, and ac-
qdiesces therein.
Is the sale void If the tax debtor had perl
senal property, which the collector might
have found, If he had made search, is it
condition precedent TO the power OF sale,
that the tax debtor did have personal prop
erty. which might have been found? See
section 1867.
This section must be read in connection
with other provisions of the Statute on the
same subject, especially section l7C0. II
we hold that the ownership of personal
property in the county takes away the
power TO sell land, we must give TO section
100 much broader meaning than its
language imparts. We must enlarge the
cause for which the sale and title may be
invalidated. A close analysis of this Sec
ton discloses the dominant idea to be, that
the title OF the purchaser must be upheld |
unless some vital infirmities defeat it. Al |
tergiving the form of the conveyance the |
declaration is switch" conveyance shall |
vest perfect title, etc. The next is that it |
shall not be invalidated sexcept by proof |
that the taxes have been paid before sale"
And the last is "that the conveyance shall |
be prima faeie evidence, that the assess
ment and sale and all proceedings of sale
were valid. We have seen that the assess
ment, its approval by com petent authority.
T and delivery of the roll or copy of the roll
of assessment to the sheriff, were the essen
tial ingredients of his power to proceed in
the collection of taxes. era 9aa
The section under review seems to con-
tenn plate that there must be a legal assess
ment and sale, and if there be so, then the
conveyance shall not be impugned, except
on proof of taxes paid before sale. That is
to say. it shall not be impeached because
the tax debtor had personal property out
I of which the taxes might have been m ade
nor secondly because there was not .'nO-
tice" and 'demand" made of the debtor.
When the language is specific that the con-
veyance is prima facie evidence of the va
lidity of the assessment" "sale" and all
proceedings of sale, it is tantamount TO the
affirmation that it shall not be conclusive
of validity, but the truth may be established
by evidence. COS - .-s.s' - '@-4>5i "a f. Isl
We conclude therefore that the grounds
upon which the conveyance may be i'm
peached. are first that the taxes were paid
before sale; second, that the assessment was
Illegal; and third, that there were such in
firmities and defects in the sssale'' and pro-
e ceedings of sale as would make it invalid.
We think that the fair aud true rendering
4 of section 100, limits and confines the OBJ
jections to a tax title to these points, and
refers all other exceptions to mere irregu-
larties. which shall not vitiate the title.
In this last category is sale of land,
without making demand of settler resi-
dent on the land Tor personal demand" OF the
tax debtor, "0r leaving written applica-
ton at his residence" as specified in section
1897, so where there might be personal
property in which levy mi ght be made, a
sale of land would not be void. These pro-
visions of the statute are directory merely,
and do not go TO the foundation of the col
lectors authority. 3o
We have already stated what are the es-
sential ingredients OF his authority, and
when these exist, all other departures from
the letter OF the statute are Irregularities
cured by the sale and conveyance.
The last requisition of 1897 referred to
was not meant TO be a condition precedent
to the powerof sale, but to fix the order in
which the two classes of property were liza
BILE. All the property of the DELINQUENT is
liable, personally first, and then the lands.
In substance precisely the same direction is
given the Sheriff in ieyying money under
execution. Land shall not be levied on if
sufficient personal property be found or
surrendered by the debtor" : 842. Code,
1871. mess f11l ~ saElD
So much as a doubt never has been sug-
gested, that the purchasers title at Sheriff's
sale could be impeached by proof that the
debtor had personal prOporty IN the county
easy to be found sufficient to satisfy the
Judgment. >" H.tf5@ti 20 SOS
A contrary doctrine would expose land
titles acquired at sales under judgments and
decree to such risks and uncertainties that
property would often be sacrificed to the
ruin of both debtor and creditor, AMI conse-.
quences exceedingly detrimental to credit
and business would affect the entire com
Il munity The Constitution is imperative
that we must look with the same favor on
the Tax Collectors title as we do on one de-
rived from the Sheriff. Non-compliance by
the Sheriff with S42, does not avoid his sale
under execution, nor should the non-con-
formity OF the tax collector with the direc-
tions of 1897 make void his title.
We proceed now to apply the principles
s herelnbefore announced to the case devel-
oped on tue trial. The objections were not
sufficient TO exclude the deed, and it was not
error TO admit it in evidence to the iurv
Nor was it error to exclude testimony tend
ing to prove that E. Virden, the landlord.
had personal property in Madison county,
suff1clent to pay the taxes, nor to exclude
evidence Of detective advertisement of sale
in the particular instance. t7at1
Testimony was admitted without obiec-
ton to the effect that E. Virden was the
owner OF the land, and that Dickens was his
tenant. The theory of the revenue law is
that the property assessed Is liable for the
taxes without regard to whom the land NAV
be put down as reputed owner. or who may
own the land when assessed, or when sold,
the land, the specific parcel, is chargeable
with the tax. Code 1871, 5 1865.
Testimony was admitted without obiec-
ton, pro and con on the pointlo of whether
Dickens, the reputed owner, had personal
property liable to levy, whether he had or
not does not, as we have seen, affect the title
OF the purchaser. Several Instructions were
given at the request OF each party: some
requests were refused. nor E5s
We have the whole case before us on bill
OF exceptions to the refusal to grant new
trial. 1t would be a useless labor to consid-
erthe several Instructions, since the plaintiff
was entitled to the verdict. ezil sss.5 Is
dofoo dor,