Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1879-01-28
TIE aRLH.rGTO.r G1sE,
Reported for tie Alexandria Gazette.

resumed in tho U. 8. Circuit Court, Judge
Hughes, presiding, this mosoioe.
TIE judge having announced yesterday that
he would render decision 90 the Instructions
this morning there vas very large Attendance
within aud sishout the bar.
The jury vas called Immediately upoo The
opening Ct the Court.
The Court thea delivered his opinion on tho
plaintiffs Instructions and the first CT the de-
PENDANTS.
The decision is as follows
United States Circuit Court, EssLera District
C.: W. :. Ire 10 ri:.:nsn'.
Kaufman ct al.
Tho two Instructions asked for by the plain
tiff aud the Instruction No. asked Tor by the
defendants, depend upon the same principles
Of law. and may be considered together. |
thok these Instructions embrace The principles
OF law which control the case under trial, and it
would seem to be hardly necessary to give much
special consideration to the cthcr instructions
offered.
will Premise that the certificate of the sale
Of Arlington made by the tax commissioners,
which can be inpesched only by showing either:
| l;t, that the property vas not subject 10 the
tax for which it vas sold or q, that it was
alter tic sale redeemed from the tax according
| to the provisions OF the law of 1862; CT Sd
that the tax had been paid before the tax sale !;
| IS impaeched by the plaintiff in this suite only
| on The lest Of these grounds. The sale is con-
coded to have been valid 10 other respects.
| This Gbjec:iou TO the sale ia made by The
plaintiff not on The claim that tho tax YVES 10
fact paid, but ou the claim that lie (or bis pre-.
dccessor 10 iilIei did all that be was bound to
do By Iaw towards paying it; that the non re-
| ceipt ct i by the government was not through
fault Of his, but through fault Of its own officers;
and that, having himself dono what was the
| tqaivaert OF paying tbs tsx, tho land was not
forfeited by laT, and the CON missioners' sale OF
me property FOR the tex was therefore unsu"
thorz:d, null and void,
| The instructions uuder consideration 81! re-
late 10 the question whether the acts Of the
plaintiff or # bis predecessor in regard to the
payment of the tax were in law the oquiVa!cn!
Ct payment to the extent Of preventing fer
fcitu7e. Tho plaintiff claim is, that through
q iriocd or agent be went to the lax commits
soacrs, st their efhc', during the period when
the tsx was receivable by law, with money 10
hand ior The purpose, and proposed to pay the
tax, bu! was prevented from doing so or from
tcrderiIg payment By being informed b? such
one or moro Of the commissioners as we're then
in their office, that the tax would not be received
except from the owner IT the land 10 person.
He claims, moreover, that this rule Of tho com
missioncrs, this construction which they pu!
upon the law CT 1862 and 1868, was 50 gencr.
ely kuCwu ard announced as to AMOUNT 10 q
waiver OF tcuGer or their part, and that be was
| .k,-o INC. n n md
nugaicry Formally Of making teader or cffsl
., payment through 40 agent or friend through
whom he had right TO act iu the matter.
end was thereby relieved 10 Law from default,
ard his lard from forfeiture ijr the tax.
iha siugie question raised BE- the three Iu
s.ruci2us uIder corsiderati5n is therefore
whether the tax imposed upon this estate BY
! iha a7 CT june I, 1862. Nor the collection Ct
direct taxes 10 iDsurrcctionsry districts" as
amended By the act Ct February 6, 1863. could
be paid except by the oW0er 10 person.
The clauses CT the act Of 1862. as amended
under which tho sale of Arlington was made,
are substantially in the following words:
| Seciop three provides, That it shall be Law
!u! FOR the owncrs Of lsud, within sixty days
alter The tax commissioners shall have fixed the
amcuut, to pay the tax thus charged into the
treasury G! the United STATES or 10 the tex c?m'
uissiuua:s, aad take a certificate thereof, by
virua whereof tie land shall be discharged
| from the tax.
Section four declares ,lio land forfeited or
the non payment ct TIE tx cs required by sc
lion three.
Sac;ob Scrc!l, after rro7icioS that II the TAI
is 10. paid as required 10 s'cton three ii shall
be sold, goes on ~ one Of its clauses to provide
substantially:
"That ID 81! easss where The owoeT Of laad
shall not, Oh or before the day Of sale, appear
ia person before the tax con missioners aGd pay
The amouut Of The tax, with iattrss. aud cos.
ci advertising, and request the land be struck
off ior less SUN than ,To thirds Of its assessed
value, the lax commissioners shall be authorized
at ne lax sale TO bid of tho land for the Unied
States at sum net exceeding Two thirds Of its
assessed value u3!ess somo person shall bid q
larger sum, 10 which case the land shall be
s!ru.k of 10 the highest bidder"
| In another c.su:e OF tho same section Scre,s
| it is provided, substantially,
That at the tex sale, any tract Of lard which
Euay be selected under the direction Of tho Pres
ideot for government use, for Tar, military,
uavll, IercLue, charitable, educational, or DO.
lice purposes, may be bid 10 by toe tax COM
inissione15 for. aud struck of to, the Uritcd
States.
These havisg bcen the provisions oil The lew
10 Io!co al he line of the tax sales undcr coz.
sideraliop, it is obvious that all sales at which
| private persons became PURCHASERS must
have betp made under the ir:t quoted clause
Of section Scren and, the price bid Tor
Ar:iaeton (S2G. 2OU) hsvicg bacn uIore than
tso thirds Of It's assessed value, ($22 49,,
and i: having been struck of to the
Uotcd States a! such price, it is equally ob.
vious that the sale Of Arlington was made 10.
| Ger the second quoted clause of The section seq
GU, and could not havo been made under the
CLAUSE first quoted.
Upon this state Ct tho law, The Surrame
Court ct the U6itcd States, 10 the csse OF Ben.
rett va. Hunter, Wasc', 526, in which Beu.
1ctt had purchased land under the first clause
OF stc;ion scocn above q1otad, decided. that a
tender OF the tax By 40 ecent OF The owner. to
the tax commissioners, before the tax sale, was
equivalent to payment, 81 az TO destroy their
authority to sell AID to reodcr their sale To-.
valid; and it 50 held, notwithstanding the
language Of the first above quoted clause Of