The Mankato free press. [volume] (Mankato, Blue Earth County, Minn.) 1879-1924, 1886-12-31
THE TAX LAW AGAIN

Our readers are more or less familiar
with the decision rendered some months
ago in the celebrated Chauncey-W ass
tax title case and which at the time
caused 80 much comment and criticisms
upon the declaration of the Supreme
Court. The case was brought up for a
rehearing and the Court on Monday
rendered its final decision, which is
simply reafiirmation of the former
ruling. The effect of the decision is to
cut of innocent property owners from
any recourse ut law against tax title
sharks who might have become possess
ed of their property through evidence
of delinquency depending upon the
error or neglect of u county officer, al
though the tax had been paid and the
rightful owner held a receipt for it. In
reviewing this case the Minneapolis
Journal briefly rehearses the facts for
the better understanding of the public.
Cordelia Wass had paid taxes regularly
on piece of property in st. Louis coun.
ty, and had the receipts; but in one in
stance the county auditor failed to mark
this property "paid" ON his books. The
property was put on the delinquent list,
published by description and the taxes
were paid by G. G. Chauncey, and in
due course title was placed in Chauncey.
Chauncey sued for possession. This
suit has brought out the monstrous in
justice of the tax title law in bold lines.
The practice is that when the auditor
makes out his list of delinquent lands
and files them with the clerk of the
court, action has in fact been instituted
against each piece of property. notice of
which is given by publication. Within
20 days after public notice has thus been
given, notice of sale is given and the
purchaser is granted conditional title,
which is made perfect title upon ex-
piratiOn Of the time Of redemption.
On the first hearing the court sustain
ed this practice even to confirming the
tax title OH land for which the owner
held the receipts, basing its judgment
on the view that the time to offer evil
dence of judgment or exemption was
before the expiration of the period of
redemption and before the perfect title
had been issued by the auditor. The
decision rendered Monday was in sup
port of the first except that it is now de-
cided by the court that notice must be
given again 80 days before the expira-
ton of the period of redemption. This
may amount to very little, however, in
the way of protection To the innocent
victim of the tax title shark, since the
of the land, usually described
by lot and block numbers and divisions
in cities and towns, may be given by gov
eminent designations SO as to be unrec-
ognizable by the owner.
Chief Justice Gilfillan and Judges
Mitchell and Dickinson affirmed the
previous decision, Judges Berry and
dissenting. The dissent
ing opinions are upon the question of
the majority of the court
holding that the proper and only time
for evidence of payment or exemption
under the law is previous 10 the explra-
ton of the period of redemption; that
judgment and sale are not afterwards
subject to review, such rule being nee
essary TO establish the right to sell and
give title upon which bidders may rely.
The dissenting opinions are to the effect