Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1883-12-22
DISPUTED TAX SALES.

An Opinion by Attorney General Eatn
Relative to q Disputed Point of Law as to
Tax sales.
The following opinion On an interesting
point of law was yesterday sent to Audi
Braden by Attorney General Hahn:
aQn, W. W. BradeD, State Auditor:
DEAR SIR: The communication of j. f.
McGovern, Esq, county attorney Of Wabashaw
county, addressed to me and referred by this
Office to you, has been returned with the request
that advise you relative to the matters therein
contained.
The facts in brief are these, viz: In 1871 a
certain lot was sold to F for taxes of 1870, and
again in 1923 and 4 the same lot was again
sold F. for the taxes OF the preceding year. At
the forfeited sale in 1881 it was again sold for
the taxes of lS74-5-6-7-s and % to r. In No
vember, 1883, in an action by F. VS.. r., it was
decided by the court that the various sales to F.
| were void for reasons given by the court in the
decision. f. therefore makes application in due
form for a refundment of the amount paid by
him on account Of said sales. Query: Is he en-
titled to such refundment?
So far as the sales in 1871, 1872 and 1873 are
concerned it seems to me that the question is
foreclosed By the decision of our supreme court
in Fleming v. Roverud, 30 MINI. 273. IN re-
| Barber Tax Judgments IL, N. W. Reporter, 473,
which hold that the right to refundment, in such
case, is matter of contract which cannot be
interfered with.
AS to the sale in 1874 the question is
somewhat different. By section 1873,
chapter /, General Laws 1874, the
money paid by purchaser was only to be re-
| funded in case the sale was declared void 'by
reason of anything occurring or omitted to be
done subsequent to the entry of Judgment" In
the case under consideration the REAGAN sta ted
by the court for holding the sale void was an
| omission occurring prior to the entry of judg-
| ment. So far, then, as this sale is concerned,
there is no matter of contract involve How
| ever, section 81, chapter II, General Statutes
] 8, as amen ed by section 10, chapter 10,
General Laws 1881, by express language covers
this case and entities the tax purchaser to a re-
fundment, section 10, even prior t. the amend
ment, explicitly making it applicable TO all
sales of land for taxes made prior to tho pas
sage of the act, was held by the supreme court
| in the case of state VS.. Brenkhite, Is Mimi d,
| to ''apply to C Sc where the sale was made
prior to the date of the passage IF the stacute
but the judgment declaring it void was made
subsequently,
| The fact that the tax purchaser has not
| paid the taxes levied, subsequent
| to his purchase IS not. the law now stands,
made condition upon which his right to re-
! fundmcnt depends. 1 can readily see how the
court, in such case, If it found the subsequent
| sale to be valid one, might refuse to investi-
gate or decide the validity of the prior sales for
the reason that whether valid or invalid his
| rights had been lost by his own negligence But
where the court in fact does determine the valid
| ity of given sale and holds the same to be in
valid and in its Judgment states for what reason
such sale is declared void the right of the pur-
| chaser to a refundment is complete. Yours
truly, W. J. HAHN, Attorney General.