The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1879-01-30

.rudgo Hnelses,s ncclsion ON Tnstrue.
& saons 10 she Jur1 offered In the AF-
oifnEton Case. ~.
tHnifed States Circuit Court, Eastern ils s.
& lrtctof Virginia ". C.Lee US. haaD g
man et al. Ia EisCtrHeils. IS I.
me Two frstrictio asked for bys tue
i3taintitY. and the Instruction No. I ASKED ses
kosa ~ the defendants, depend upon the
same principles OF law, and may be con-
sidered together. I think these instr RUG
tions embrace the principles OF law when
control the case under trial, md 1t Woaia
seem to be hardly necessary to give mucn.
special consideration to the other tnstrtlFc-
tons offered. -.
Il will premise that the certificate OF I ne
sale OF Arlington made by the tax; eomm!s-
sioners. which can be impeached only py
showing either-frst, that the properly was va
not subject to the tax for which II. was
sold; or second, that it was after the SAFE
redeemed from the tax according TO tue
provisions OF the law OF 1867; or lniIu,
that the tax had been paid before inc To- :
saie-is inpeached by the piainell!H, IN Luis
suit only on the last OF these grounds. ! ne
sale is conceded to have been fald IN ID otner
respects. IS 49,. S, si...lt.,..
This objection to the sale is made by the
plaintiff not on the claim that the tax was IN
fact paid, but on the: claim tnat ne lof DIS
pred ecessor in title) did all that ne was
bound to do BY law towards paying It; that
file non.receii,t or il, by the Government
was NOT through fault OF his, but through
fault Of its eWn officers; and that, having
himself done what was the equivalent OF
having the tax, the land was not forfeited
nv law. and the commissioners sale OF the
nroperty for the tax was therefore unau-
thorized, null, and void. 80. ...ss,;...., :,
The instructions under consideration all
relate to the question whether the acts OF
the plaintiff for OF his predecessor Ill re-
gard to the payment OF the tax were In law
the equivalent of payment to the extent Of
preventing a forfeiture. The plaintiffs
claim is tina: through friend or agent be
went to the tax commissioners, at their Of
fee, during the period when the, tax was
receivable by law, with money in band for
the purpose, and proposed to pay the tax, but
was prevented from doing so or from tender
ing payment by being informed by such one
or more of the commissioners as were thenin
their office that the tax would not be received
except from the owner OF the land in per-
son. He claims, moreover, that this rule OF
the commissioners-thiS construction which
they put upon the law OF 1862 and 1863
was so generally known and announced as
to amount to waiver Of tender on their
part, and that he was thereby .eXonerated
from the useless task and nugatory formallty
OF making tender or offer OF payment
through an agent or friend Through whom
he had right to act in The matter], and was
thereby relieved in law from, default, and
his land from forfeiture for the tax. ,..e =
The single question raised by the three
instructions under consideration is there
fore whether the lax imposed upon this
estate by the law, OF June Z, 1862, g for the
collection Of direct taxes in insurrectionary
Districts" as amended by the act Of Feb
rliary 6, 1868, could be paid except by the
owner IN person. ....s,.... a,.,,.s.-: ::
The clauses Of the act OF 1872, as amended,
under which toe sale,of Arlington was made,
are substantially in The following words:
Section three provides g that il shall be
lawful for the owners OF land, within sixty
days after the tax commissioners shall baye
fixed the amount, to pay the tax thus
charged into the Treasury Of the United
States or, to the tax commissioners, and
take certificate thereof, by virtue WHEREOF
the land shall be discharged from the tax"
Section four.declares the land forfeited
on the 1on-pay ment OF the tax as required
BY section three. :, - - =.
Section Seue?,, after providing that the
tax is not paid as required in section three
it shall be sold, goes on in one Of Its Clauses
TO provide substantially: -. s.
: s.That in all cases where the owner OF
lon shall NOT ~ haForo ha Iox, 81 solo
appear. in person before the tax commits
interest and cost OF Advertising. and re-
quest the land be struck off for less sum
than two thirds OF its assessed value, the
tax commissioners shall be authorized ut
the tax sale to bid of the land for the United
States ut a sum not exceeding two thirds OF
its assessed value unless some person shall
bid larger sum, in which case the land
sha1l be struck off to The highest bidder"
In another clause OF the same section
Seven it is provided, substantially, aa,s.,
"That ut the tax sale any tract or land
which may be selected under the direction
Of the President for Government use, for
war, military, naval, revenue, charitable,
educational, or police purposes, may be
bid in by tie tax commissioners for and
struck off to the United States.'' ---.. Ri
These having been the provisions Of the,
law in force ut the time Of the tax sales
under consideration, it is obvious that all
sales at which private persons became pur-
chaSers must have been made under the
first-Quoted clause OF section Seuen and the
price bid for Arlington (S26,200) having
been more than two thirds OF its assessed
value (S22, 1881, and it having been struck
off to the United States at such price, it is
equally obvious that the sale, Of Arlington
was made under the second-guoted clause
of the section Seven, and could not have
been made upder the clause first quoted.
Upon this state OF the law the Supreme
Court OF the United States. in the case OF
Bennett Us. Hunter, Wallace, 326, in
which Bennett had Purchased land under.
the first clause OF section Seuen, above
quoted, decided that tender OF the tax by
an agent of the owner to the tax commits
sioners before the tax sale was equivalent to
a payment, so as to destroy their authority to
sell and to render their sale invalid; and it
so held notwithstanding the language OF the
first abore-quoted clause OF section jSeuen,
providing that sale might be made in all
cases in which the owner had not, before
the sale, appeared in person before the tax.
commissioners and paid the tax. The Court
Expressly TetDaTkeu IN us ueClSlon tHaC IL
did 60 not perceive in the terms OF the act
any limitation Of the right OF paying the
tax to tile owner in his proper person." =.
In ascertaining who was authorized TO
pay the tax, which it expressly said was the
only question i'll the ease, the Court seemed
to feel bound to confine its view to section
three as the part OF; the act which deter
mined the rights OF the owner of land in
regard to paying the tax, section which
did not expressly require the owner to pay
in narsnn. The CnIlrt in determining this