The weekly clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1863-1882, 1878-01-02

ment and sale, and If there be SO, then the
| conveyance shall not be impugned, except
on proof of taxes paid before sale. That il
TO say. it shall not be impeached because
| the tax debtor had personal property out
| of which the taxes might have been made
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 eviden ce.
| 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 sale" and pro-
ceedings of sale as would make IL invalid.
We think that the fair aud true rendering
OF section 100, limits and confines the Oh
jections to a tax title to these points, and
refers all other exceptions to mere iTregu
larities, which shall not vitiate the title.
In this last category is a sale OF land
without making demand of settler resi-
dent on the land Tor personal demand" OF the
tax debtor, cor leaving written applica-
ton at his residence" as specified in section
1897, so where there might be personal
property in which levy might be made,
sale of land would not be void. These pro-
visions of the statute are directory merely,
ami do not go to the foundation of the col
lectors authority.
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 10
was not meant to be q condition precedent
to the power of sale, but to fix the order Ia
which the two classes OF property were LA
Bile. All the property OF the delinquent is
liable, personally first, AID then the lands.
In substance precisely the same direction IS
given the Sheriff in levying money under
execution. Land shall not be levied on IL
sufficient personal property be found or
surrendered by the debtor" 842. Code,
1871.
So much as a doubt never has been sug-
gested, that the purchasers title at Sheritt's
sale could be impeached by proof that the
debtor had personal property in the county
easy to be found sufficient to satisfy the
Judgment.
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, and cOnse-
quences exceedingly detrimental to credit
and business would affect the entire COM
munity. The Constitution is imperative
that we must look with the same favor on
the Tax Collectors title as we do on one de-
the Sheriff with S42, does not avoid his sale
under execution, nor should the non-con-
formity OF the tax collector with the diree
tions of 1897 make void his title.
We proceed now to apply the principles |
hereinbefore announced to the case devel- |
oped on the trial. The objections were not |
sufficient to exclude the deed, and IL was not |
error TO admit it in evidence TO the jury.
Nor was it error to exclude testimony tend
ing to prove that T.. Virden, the landlord,
DarSOnaI N
sufficient TO pay the taxes, nor to exclude
evidence OF defective advertisement of sale
in the particular instance.
Testimony was admitted without objec-
ton to the effect that H. Virdeu was the
owner OF the land, and that Dickens was his
tenant. The theory OF the revenue law Il
hat the property assessed Is liable for the
axes without regard to whom the land may
De put down as reputed owner, or who may
Dwn the land when assessed, or when sold,
he land, the specific parcel. is chargeable
With the tax. Code 1871, 1865.
Testimony was admitted without objec- :
ion, pro and con on the point of whether
Dickens, the reputed owner, had personal |
property liable to levy, whether he had or 8
lot does not, as we have seen, affect the title C
t the purchaser. Several instructions were 8
iven at the request OF each party; some r
equests were refused. 1
We have the whole case before US on bill
{ exceptions to the refusal TO grant a new
rial. 1t would be a useless labor to cOnsid- y
r the several instructions, since the plaintiff y
yas entitled to the verdict. y
The defendant made no attempt to destroy =
ne presumption arising from the convey
nee, by evidence tending to show that the
Ixes had been paid before sale, or that the D
ssessment was illegal or insufficient In law, al
r that the sale or proceedings OF sale were q
valid. However the truth may have been nj
2 all the questions to which the defendant at
fOrded testimony, the validity of the
lie could not be affected, they referred -
Irregularities, or omissions, which did not >"
lake it void. u
On the whole caee, let the judgment be o.
trmed. SIMRALL, Z. j. !. !.