Jamestown weekly alert. [volume] (Jamestown, Stutsman County, D.T. [N.D.]) 1882-1925, 1885-10-08
J. g. WARNo0K. Edito,
THE SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS
On THE TAX LIST QUESTION.


ON THE TAX LIST QUESTION.
The supreme court OF Kansas last No
vember filed decision in case involv-
ing the validity of tax titles, which is of
importance to the people of Stutsman
AID other counties IN Dakota. The cases
were taken up on appeal from the dis
trlct court OF Shawnee county. IN which
they were brought to recover lots held
under tax title in the city Of Topeka, by
which court the tax deeds were held to
be valid.
One of the points of attack made by
plaintiffs attorneys upon the validity Of
the tax ceeds held by defendants was
that the full amount Of legal fees for pub
lication Of the delinquent list were
charged up against the lots while the
printer was only paid 20 pei cent. 1t
will be seen in the decision quoted far
ther on IN this article that the supreme
court held this to be an important and
vital point
The syllabus Of the case, which is re-
ported in Volume 4, The Pacific Report
er, "Ilarris vs.. Curran and Others" and
"Ilarris vs.. Edwards and another con-
tains the following:
"Where the whole OF the printers le.
gal fee chargeable against property for
publishing such property, as required by
law, IN the delinquent tax list is charged
against the property, and the property
sold therefor at tax sale, while only 20
per cent. Of that amount is paid to the
printer, HELD, that such ,rregularity IN
the tax sale renders the tax deed yoida-
bic at any time within hve years after
the recording of the tax deed.''
The supreme court cites the following
findings of the court below:
"That the printing of the delinquent
tax list Of 1874 was performed by the
printer under written contract between
himself aud the county of Shawnee for
twenty per cent Of the legal charges, and
the whole of the legal Zee was charged
against the lots IN controversy for the
printing Of the delinquent list, and form
ed part of the taxes for which said let's
were sold. That the printer did not file
his affidavit Of publication for more than
fourteen days after the last publication,
said last publication being April 23d,
1874, and said affidavit was not made and
filed until August 10, 1874 That the as
sessed valuation of all taxable property
Of Shawnee county for the year 1873 vas
eC, C,010, ,2s5, and that the taxes levied for
the year 1873 were as follows: For cur
rent expenses Of the county, five mills on
the dollar; to pay interest on ia.r ground
bonds and Topeka bridge bonds, one mill;
for repairing and building county bridges,
one mil, all of which lcyies were made
without the direct vote of the electors of
the county authorizing the same, and
that all these taxes 80 levied entered into
and formed part Of the taxes for which
said lands were sold in 1874"
The above findings Of the district court
arc cited by the supreme court as impor
tant to the questions involved, but it will
be seen in the decision Of the supreme
court following that the court regarded
the printers Zee as The most important
one. The court say:
"Thc plaintiff claims that, upon the
facts contained in the foregoing findings,
the Defendants tax dcei is void, or at
least voitable, and that the court below
errei IN holding 1t vaild. and in render
ing Judgment in favor Of the defendants
and against the Plaintiff to that effect.
We think the plaintiffs claim is good;
for as the whole OF the printers legal fee
chargeablc against the lots IN controversy
for publishing them, az required by law,
IN the delinquent tax list Of 1874, was
charged against the lots, and the lots sold
therefor, while only ~ per cent of that
amount was paid to the printer, the de-
fendants' tax deed must, within the decl
sion of the case Of Genthner vs.. Lewis,
"a Kan. 800, be held to be vodable. The
judgment Of the court below in each of
these cases will therefore be reversed,
and the causes remanded for further pro
ceedings." .
The above is substantially the view
taken by city attorney Dodge and Hon.
johnson Nlckeus in addressing the city
council on the subject last Mont ay night,
which view Aid. Hicks characterized as
"nonsensc" and Aid. Long thought 80
too. 1t is possible that the supreme court
of Kansas, which was unanimous in the
above, may reverse its decision when it
learns of the opinion of Aldermen Hicks
aid Long of the council of this city, but
until such reversal the decision must be
accepted rs good law, even if it ,s "non-
sense
1T IS not probable that president Cleve
land will take any action IN regard to the
oouorooroh;,> of noEofa ,,ntil conrroas