Morris tribune., 1885-11-25
The supreme court has recently


rendered a most extraordinary de-
cision which means that u tax receipt
in itself is worthless. The following
from the Pioneer Press will explain
the matter more fully:
If we read the extraordinary de-
cision of the supreme court in the
case of Charles Chauncey VS.. Cornelia
Wass, published in full elsewhere, it
means that though the owner Of land
may have paid his taxes thereon, If
by error or fraud on the part of the
county officers the tax is advertised
as delinquent, judgement given for
the county, and the land sold for the
taxes, the title of the purchaser is
valid. The only remedy of the owner
is to appear III court before Judgement
is rendered and prove that he has paid
his taxes, or during the two years al
lowed him for redemption the court
may open or vacate the judgement
and permit the party to defend to the
same extent as before, or finally, he
may appeal to the supreme court for
a review of the case. If from ignor-
ance of the fact that these formal
proceeding to deprive him of his
property have been going on, lie al
lows them to proceed till the two
years redemption expires he will be.
etfectually robbed by legal process Of
his property, without redress and
with the full sanction of the supreme
court. The monstrous injustice which
this decision will certainly intiict up
on many innocent people is briefly in
dlcated in the dissenting opinion of
Judge Berry. The court assumes
that if tax paid and receipted for has
been enormously advertised as de-
linquent, the tax prayer is bound to
know it, so know that Judgment has
been rendered against his property,
and that 1T had been sold for the tax.
AS matter of fact, delinquent taxes
and the notices that relate to the sub
sequent proceedings are usually
published III papers of small circula-
ton, which are generally not read.
It is not the prompt taxpayer who
these dreary records, know
ing that he had paid his tax, and
hat his tax receipt was securely
locked in his desk or safe. It would
never enter into his head to wade |
through the enormous array Of official
advertisements to find out whether |
;he county officers had enormously
his tax as unpaid. His
and might be in another county,
whose newspaper he never saw, or he |
night be Il foreigner, ignorant Of the |
English language. In any case he !
WOULD rest securely upon the fact that !
lie had paid his taNes-upon his tax
'eceipt-and it might very easily |
happen, as it has happened in thous-
lnds of eases, that all the proceedings |
or divesting him of his property |
night go on to final consumation
without the slightest knOWlege of
UGH proceedings on his part. He
lad done his duty in paying his tax.
He would naturally rely upon the
ounty officers to do theirs in proper
y noting it's payment on their records.
The decision of the supreme court is
II effect, that no matter how care
ully the tax payer has discharged his
luty in paying his taxes when due, he
must suffer the penalty of the neglect
# the comfy officers to do theirs in
he loss of his property. If through
arelessness or fraud, as has often
they omit to mark his tax
aid, his receipt will avail him moth
ng, That this decision opens wide
oor for the fraudulent collision of
ounty officers and tax title sharks to
OBJ innocent men and women of their
goes without saying. That
We do not mistake the purport of this
ecision is evident from the
mphatic protest of Judge Berry in
lis dissenting opinion. 1t is all the
nore extraordinary because it is in
of the principles of
guilty which have usually governed
he decisions of the courts in tax
asses. The courts have not usually
o interpreted the law as to make the
innocent owners of property suffer for
he negligence or errors of officials.