Iron County register. [volume] (Ironton, Iron County, Mo.) 1867-1965, 1880-01-29

The revenue law of 1877 seems to be
pretty well settled by the courts. All
of their decisions, both appellate and
circuit, rendered upon its prov isions
are in its favor, in all respects sustain
ing it. We have before us two cases
which seem to settle all the important
questions involved in the legislation of
1877 in regard to the revenue. One is
the opinion Of the st. Louis Court of
Appeals-Bakewell judge. This is
clear, well-considered opinion of weight,
because it discusses all the questions
likely to arise in back-tax suits, and has
the approval of the most eminent jur-
lists of the State.
In this opinion it is decided that the
"return of delinquent list by the collec-
tor for taxes of 1868, rendition of judg-
ment and order of sale by the county
court, and forfeiture of the lands to the
Estate in October, 1869, did not eXtin-
guish the States lien and pecuniary
demand for the taxes. Forfeiture of
lands for taxes and creation of States
lien did not pass absolutely the title
out of the owner, until proper steps
were taken to enforce the forfeiture by
sale of the land on the part of the
State. The State may waive its claim
to the land, and again assess it for tax
alton, and take further proceedings to
enforce the payment of subsequently
accrued taxes, or of those already due
at the time of forfeiture. The object of
the law was revenue to be raised by
collecting the taxes assessed upon the
land, and Sec. 1l6, page 1905, Wagner's
Statutes, was intended merely as pre-
lminary, and was to work no divesti-
ture of title until second sale.
1.-THE act of April IL, 1877, is not
retrospective in its operation within
the meaning Of Sec. 10, Art. II. of the
Constitution. / merely varies the na-
ture and extent of the remedy, and
does not confer upon the State right
it did not possess before. The liability
for the taxes existed already; no new
obligations were created, and no new
duty imposed. The scope and object
of the law was to provide for such
judgment and special execution against
the land on which the tax is due, as
shall pass the title to the purchaser.
"Statute of limitation (Wag. 91S, Sec.
49, does not apply to the summary
proceedings on the part of the State to
forfeited lands for non-payment of tax
es. Limitation did not begin to run
until the action had accrued to per-
son capable of suing. Act of 1877 does
away with all limitations, and the leg
islature had the power to change the
statute at any time whilst the right to
sue had not been already barred"
Another is the opinion of Judge Nap
ton, of the Supreme Court of this State,
in case of Rosenblatt, collector of st.
Louis county, VS.. Herman. It decides
the back-tax act valid in every respect,
and is in effect the same as the opinion
of the st. Louis Court of Appeals. 1t
pronounces the back-tax act constitu-
tional-that land forfeited to the State
under the act of 1S65-66, and the act of
1S71-72, based on the same general
scheme with that Of 1855, {avoiding |
the blunder Of Section 1l6,) and simply
declaring in reference to the forfeited |
list that the State retained lien on
the lands in such lists for taxes, inter.
est and costs due thereon, and such
lien was oil that was designed by the
act OF 1865, and the taxes were not
by this supposed sale to
the State.
The court still further decides that as