Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1879-04-08
The Judgments of the Supreme Court of
Tennessee Reversed AMI the Tax
sales Held to be VaIid-The
TaX.Titie Holders to be
Put in Possession
of the Property.

In our courts there are some one hundred
or more United States tax title cases with
| reference to titles sought to be secured to
parcels of ground in this city by purchasers
| under the United States ta1-sales of June
| 1864. The principal defense to these suits by
| the real owners was that the Federal military
authority had not'then been fully established
| throughout the entire county of Shelby and
| irregularities in the sale by the United States
authorities. Test cases were carried through
| our State courts, and to the supreme court OF
! the State, and IN these courts the cases were
! decided against the tax.ttle claimants;
| but the cases were carried to the supreme
court Of the United States. About two weeks
ago that court reversed the judgments of the
| supreme court OF the State, and ordered the
| records to be RENTED, with the instructions
to order a dismissal of the bills. The follow.
| ing decisions settle the que tons in favor of
the taX-tltle purchasers in Memphis. We
give carefully-compiled abstracts OF both
opinions, leaving out the arguments:
Supreme Court of the United States In error to the
supreme Court of the State of Tennessee October
Term. 1S7S-ThOmas Kelly, plaintiff, in error, vs.
IenOphin B. Saunders, Calvin l.. story and Eliza
NJ Story MIR. Justice Strong delivered the opin-
Ion OF the court
In the courts of Tennessee a bill to quiet
title to a parcel of ground in the city of Mem
phis was fled against the appellant, who
claims to be owner by virtue of a sale for direct
taxes made on the twenty-tourth of
June, 1864. The till assaiIs the ii lie of the
appellant for ten different reasons, and
charges that the sale made to him was rull
and void.
The government of the United States
within Its sphere is Independent of State ac-
ton, and certainly 1t must be a strange thing
If State court by its action could relieve
property subject to Federal taxation from ha-
blity TO pay the taxes when due.
no fbaft la .,ok,
in this case was all that was needed to iden-
THY the land, and to inform the Saunders
heirs or devlsees, who are the complainants
in the bill, Of the claim made upon their
property.
In this case there is positive testimony
that the property was advertised for sale in a
newspaper then published In Memphis.
1t was cot made the duty OF the commits
sioners to subdivldc the property.
The tendency of the civil war and the fact
that the owner resided In another State then
in rebellion, cannot enlarge his right to re-
deem. In this case, however, there was no
attempt or even offer to redeem.
1t is the avarmeDt thai when the tax sale
was made the military authority of the
United States was not established In and
over the county of Shelby, State OF Tennes-
zee, nor was it established in any one county
as required by law. The city of Memphis,
it is conceded, was in full and undisputed
possession OF the I eCeraI army, and that the
remaining part OF the county was not in
Federal occupation. The city of Memphis
had territorial limits and a municipal organ
lzatlon, with taxing power and assessments
distinct from the county of which it was a
part. 1t was In a very proper sense a dis
trlct, and district within the meaning of
the act of congress of 1868, and this obiec-
ton to the validity Of the appellants tit1e is
without foundation. The Judgment of the
supreme court of Tennessee is reversed and
the record is RENTED, with instruction to
order dismissal of the bill.
authorities Cited in the Opinion-Act of
Congress, June Z, 1868; Cooley's Law of Tax
alton, page 2S4-86; S. Court opinion in the |
case of DeTreville Us. Small; Turner u.s.
Smith, IA Wall, 553; Mitchell rs Green, 10 |
Met, 10l; Craig rs. Flanagan, q Ark, |
3l9; Flnlay rs. Brown, p Iowa, 638; Bank of |
L. 5. Us. cambridge, II Wheat, g.
Supreme Court of the United States October Term |
1S7S-Patrick Sherry, Dennis Sexton Plaintiffs |
In Error Andrew M'Kinley and Luther II. |
Thurston, Executors and Trustees of John NJ Kin
ley, deceased Ashley II Kinley ct al. In Error to
the Supreme Court of Tennessee Mr. Justice |
Strong delivered the opinion of the Court.
Most of the questions presented IN the |
,ecord were heretofore decided in the case of |
Kelly rs Saunders ct AL
1t is to be presumed that the sales were |
adjourned from day to day until June 25th. |
At most there was but an irregularity, which |
he act of 1868 rendered Intellectual to defeat |
he title of the purchaser.
The Judgment of the supreme court is re-
yersed, and the record is recommitted with |
Instructions to order a dismissal of the bill.