Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1885-03-27

An Important Decision As To Titles.
A TAx-TITLE CASE.
Thursday in the General Term of the Supreme
Court of the District q decree was made in the
case of keefe agt. Bramhail and Baker, trus-
tees. and the heirs of James S. Stephenson, in
favor OF the defendants. The plaintiff filed q
Dill in equity in September, 1888, to remove a
cloud from his title to a lot on d st. northeast,
between I'd and 4th streets, and for damages.
Inc bill claimed that the defendants were not
the heirs of Stephenson. After the taking of
testimony the plaintiffs counsel, Mr.. j. G. Bige-
low, admitted by stipulation that Stephenson
1led sliced, and that the defendants were his
heirs. Judge Macarthur, at the hearing in
March last, dismissed the bill, and plaintiff took
an appeal to the General Term, the case to be
heard on its merits.
After argument by J. G. Bigelow for plaintiff,
and an Judge Willoughby for defendants, Judge
Wyl1e delivered the unanimous opinion of the
court Some extracts from the opinion will be
Of interest: This is bill to quiet the title to
the west half of lot g. square $50. The plaintiff
claims under tax title and some mesne convey
a a!a. The defendants claim under the real
S Sitlei Inc property was vested In James 8:
the year ISL sliced. The defendants are all
heirs-at-law of James S. Stephenson. 1t is q
under the corporation of Washington against
ne heirs who hold the other, the real title
Inns piece of property was sold in the year
$50. for taxes for 1924, 1925 and 1926 for
S112- No tax deed for this property was ever
made TO the purchaser for thirteen years, 1S41,
and a. no possession was taken by the purchaser
sale until 1870, when this plaintiff took posses
sion. The lot lay out in an unimproved part of
Oh the TACT, II is very probable. from the lights
we have. that the intermediate taxes, after
1927, had been paid by either the original pur-
CHASER at the tax sale or by those who claim
under him. There is no evidence that these
heirs ever paid the taxes. which We're small.
The bill did not aver that this was a valid tax
sale. Ii does not set out the fact and there is
no proof to- establish its validity The theory of
the Dill IL that, whether valid or not, the deed
anln 10
sary, II the plaintiff relied upon the validity of
the tax title, that he should prove it. A tax
deed OF Itself proves nothing.
"A party who claims to enter under a color
able title, and by length of possession gains a
title, viii hold according to the metes and
bounds set out in his colorado title; that is the
whole effect of it. He has colorado title; he
l mas no title to anything except what his feet
say mat is a very liberal concession to the
complainant in the case, because a void tax
Is nothing to show that this tax deed amounts
to anything at all The fact that he has q tax
deed, that the tax deed was recorded, and that
he paid the taxes on the property, is no proof of
title al all as against the real owner The law
presumes always, and, in fact, the law attaches
IT'S own possession to real property, and that
possession cannot be disposed of by any other
title, except by actual possession. In this case
there was no actual possession until the wear
possession by the complainant. Well, we know
that thirteen years of adverse possession does
not make q title. 1t requires twenty years of
adverse possession to make q good title and
that adverse possession must be open notorious
and actual not constructive. Payment of taxes
does mot amount to adverse possession.
recording q deed does not amount to adverse
possession. because it is not visible it is not
open, ii Is not notorious, it is not actual. There
Is not an authority from the earliest history of
the common law TO this day which supports or
gives counfenance to the preteXt that man can
be ouSted OF the title to his property by some
other body paying his taxes and by getting a
tax deed Tor the land The Ia ba
valid, or there must be actual open. notorious,
, vislh,,e' adverse possession against all the
Now we have reached the point where we find
no adverse possession by tax title. These de-
PENDANTS. therefore, cannot be deprived of their
title by descent from their ancestor Stephenson
by means of Il tax title because no tax title has
been established or shown. The only other title
that the complainant has is such title as is set
UP by means OF adverse possession, which at
The time y bringing this suit it was only thir-
teen years, so that there is no title by adverse
In regard TO applications to quiet title courts
have always been very exact. No court of
equity will ever interfere between two claim
anis To piece of real estate, for the purpose of
acquiring title. unless the complainant shows :,
clear and indisputabe title, but leaves the par
Ties toany other remedy they may have. >
NOW, purchasers ut tax sale have never been
very much favored. Here the tax sale was
made IN Isl. for taXess and sold for S1.42
ell thus complainant says that he paid
large sum OF money for this property, I,5OO,
ana says that this gives him Il Strong equity
but every man who buys under u tax title
knows that he is buying something that he is
Obliged to defend. Whether the forms of law
were complied with in regard to that sale in
any respect. we do not know. because we have
no evidence, and no court of equity, il seems to
me, Is going to presume very strongly in favor
oil a lax ute, and party who purchases from
others who hold a tax title. purchases with full
kho"iedge tii;it he IS running a risk and he is
bound to know whether the tax title is good or
nOt. Tie buys with his eyes open. The inter-
others, William Il. Todd, and generally when a
man dies seized OF real estate, and leaves it to
MS nelrS. III Is with some presumption In his
f1Vnr very seldom has there been an action of
eject1nent where either party has been obliged
10 60 back OF Il party who has died actually
seized Oh iand But there is no presumption at
all III laVor of the validity OF q title which is
descended from a deceased ances.o unless that
deceased ancestor died seized. We think on
every ground the bill ought To be dismissed"