The comet. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1877-1882, 1881-12-03

Clerk. Such entries are declared to b
"pyima /ac5e evidence that tho lands ha,
been assessed and advertised according 7,
law" and their absence would be fully sup
piled by proof Of these facts. But as befor
stated, the title acquired by the State die
of the Act mentioned, and the list OF Ian,
sold TO the State was admissible with0u
| evidence OF assessment or advertisement
As to part OF the land In controversy, thu
reliance of the defendants In the Cont be.
low, was on conveyance Of II by Weber
tax-collect0r Of Washington county, In
1871, in pursuance OF sale for levee taxes
due for 1870, under the Act of February
1867. In order to invalidate this convey.
ance, the plaintiff offered evidence to show
that Webber had not given bond for the
collection OF the levee taxes, as required
by law. This evidence was objected to by
the defendant, but II was admitted and he
excepted, and this presents the remaining
question for our decision. The objection
to this evidence was made specifically "bc-
cause under section 5 OF the amendatory
levee Act of 1873" such evidence is incom-
petent. That section IS in these words |:
" Sec. 8. Be it further enacted, That upon
the expiration of five years from and after
the sale of lands for the levee taxes under
the provisions Of said Acts, no testimony
or evidence TO impeach or invalidate the
deeds therefor to said Commissioner or his
predecessors in Office. shall be entertained
by any Courts of law or equity in this
State, except in cases of fraud" etc.
Laws Of 1873, p. 153. The sale by Wcbber
was prior to this Act, but it was clearly in,
tended to apply to precedent as well as sub
sequent sales, and as moro than five years
had expired after the passage of the Act,
and before the evidence was offered to in
validate the deed, no question can arise us
to this circumstance. The only question is
az to the validity of the section quoted. 1t
is assailed as unconstitutional, in that 1t
makes the deeds mentioned in it conclusive
evidence Of title In the grantee after five
years from the sale, and it is claimed that
this Court SO decided In Virden Us. Bos0ers,
% Miss, l,
There is nothing in the case mentioned
to sustain such an assestion.t In the
opinion Of Simrall, G. j., it was said: /" It |
would be perhaps an unwarranted exercise |
OF power in the Legislature to declare the |
deed conclusive to pass the |
title !" and In the opinion of Chalmers, j., |
speaking OF Sec. 100 Of the Code OF 1871, |
II is said " Standing by itself without |
1t would render perfect o title |
under tax collectors deed made in pri. |
vatc, without either assessment or sale. |
Such law the authorities cited In the |
opinion show to be uuconstitu.
tional." We adhere to the Doctrine an.
nounced in that opinion, and are ready TO I
rc-afiirm that tho Legislature cannot make
q tax-c0llector's deed e0nclasiue evidence
Of title, 80 as TO preclude evidence Of non-
existence of the fundamental conditions
imposed by the Constitution on the power
to tax and sell for non-payment. There
are certain constitutional prerequisites
which the Legislature connot dispense
with. There must be an assessment of
the land, and levy Of taxes and default In
payment, before tho power to sell can
exist, and an act making deed or list by
he tax collector conclusive of these facts
hem, might justly be pronounced void.
But that Is not the case before us, for
he evidence to invalidate the conveyance
" Weber was not directed to the nom
existence OF any constitutional prere-
luisite so an exercise OF power to sell for
axes. 1t was to show that Weber had
lot executed the bond as required by law
IS the condition Of his right to collect the
eyee taxes, and assuming that this il suf-
lcient TO invalididate his conveyance, the
,recise question to be resolved is, whether
I is within the power Of the Legislature
o make conveyance by q taX-collector
conclusive evidence of the existence of
oleiy on legislative provisions, and not
mbraced in the requirement of the Con-
In other words, may the Legis-
AZURE make the conveyance of the tax
ollcctor itself the indisputable evidence
4 title, proof against all assailment, be-
ause OF some irregularity or illcgality
onsisting in failure to observe some re-
not made by the Constitution,
nut imposed by the Legislature 7 We do
0t hesitate to answer this in the afflrma-
i've, after the most careful examination
nd solemn consideration bestowed upon
be question, by the aid Of all the learning
he books afford. 1t is settled that the
ni a ms 0tsr l,xta s.l.p Il |
ion, whatever might have been dispensed
With beforehand. Many cases announce
his doctrine, and II is true in the nature of
hings. An effort has been made in some
Instances to limit the principle as applied
D legislation with respect to irregularities
? tax sales, but We recognize no distinc-
ION between the power OF the Legislature
0 deal with tax sales and any other sub.
,ct OF legislation. In every case the en-
uiry IL, whether the Legislature has
the bounds prescribed by the
If it has not, 1t is not ma
,rial that the object Of 1t is to cure defects
! tax titles. paugAaa Is. .Seagsee, SO
Iiss., 70i Therefore, il the Legislature :
light omit the requirement Alto
ether, it may remit the consequence OF
lsregard Of It, or may forbid any inquirey
Ito the fact OF Its observance or non-ob-
rvane. The requirement. OF bond be-
re the collector should collect the taxes,
as made by the Legislature. 1t might
I'VE been dispensed with by the Legisla- n
re, and 1t was competent for that body to
'clare the compliance or Noncompliance
ould not be inquired into. afterwards. Ii
~ true the declaration was made by
bsequent act, but moro than five years n
lpsed after II was passed In which ques- "
ms of this kind could have been raised.
1T for the decision IN Hasser .. George, Al
lss. 72S, we should have thought it very
inifest proposition that the failure of the
K collector to give bond was not ground II
annul his sale. We would have SO ruled ~
the view that the failure 70 secure the
lotion OF the officer for not giving the
nd required aud his possession and ex-
Else OF the functions of the office made -
acts valid and binding as lawful acts, In 7,
cordance with the undesirable pro- v
i ons Of the Statute, Code of 1857, d 13S,
I. l0i. But we place our decision dis A
city on the ground the 9Th Section Of
, Act OF April 10, 1873 is valid to the ex- IA
It OF preluding any evidence TO mpeach y
invalidato the conveyance Of Webbcr n
cause OF his non-0bseryance of any stat ~
Try requirements not embraced In any OF
, constitutional requirements on the sub &c
{. We purposely avoid any reference TO
question Of the power Of the legisla-
e TO pass statutes precluding all inquiry III
er prescribed period OF time, into the
idity OF sales for taxes. What, If any, ca
the limits Of such an exercise of aii-
'rity, we leave TO be announced when
re may be an occasion for IL. Such an
louncement Is not called for in this case.
icmept reversed and new trial vrsnted | 4