The Worthington advance. [volume] (Worthington, Minn.) 1874-1908, 1886-06-17
IMPORTANT TAX DECISION.

Good Ne,cs for Delinqucnts-Bad News
for Tar Title Hollers-7he Supreme
Court Decides that Ninety Days. No.
tice Must be Given.
The storm which has been raging
for sometime at st. Paul concerning
tax titles and tax title sharks culmi-
mated recently in lightning stroke
which filled the so-called 'sharks"
with CONSERVATION and made glad the
hearts and pockets of hundreds of de-
linquent tax payers who supposed their
land lost through their own neglect or
through the shrewdness of others.
In nutshell, the decision of the
court is that the law of 1881, which re-
Pc: led the clause of the law Of 1877 re !.
quiring ninety days. notice from the
tax title holder to the owner of the
land, is unconstitutional, because the
subject of the enactment is not ex-
pressed in the title. Since 1881 notice
has not been required, but hereafter it
must lie given. AS to the effect Of the
decision, ex- County Auditor McCardy,
of st. Paul, says:
The practical effect of the decision
will be most beneficial to the owners
of property on which taxes are delin-
Quent, for it gives them an opportuni-
ty to redeem if they desire. while un-
der the law Of 1881 they were deprived
of this privilege. 1t will also cause a
lively hustling around among the tax
title sharks, AS most of them are likely
to find out before they get through
with the matter that their opportuni-
ties for acquiring ill.gotten gains have
forever flown. The result is simply
this: That all tax titles on land sold
for taxes delinquent from 1877 to the
present time. unless the ninety days.
notice of service was given and the
owner failed to redeem in that time,
are void. 1t matters not whether more
than the two years required by the law
for redemption had elapsed. In order
to- hold the land the holder of the tax
title must now serve his ninety days of
notice. And it the owner comes in
during that time lie can redeem and
receive Il clear title by simply paying
the amount Ct taxes that were dtlin-
Qurnt on the land ut the time of the
original sale, plus the interest to date.
This is clearly proven hv the fact that
u clause OF the law Of 1877, referred to
above, expressly stipulatps that the
ninety days notice Of Service shall
stand until repealed. And the discus.
sion says tie law Of 1877 never was re-
peAlrd. Since passage of the law Of
1881 no notices have been required,
hence all sales Of land that was not re-
deemed will be overturned. The re-
suit viii! be a general confusion IF IT,
ties in thousands of cases for some
time to come, rs many have bought
from holders Of tax titles who had ob-
tanned deeds and the owners failed to
redeem. For the next thirty days or
more there will be general irving of
notices, and in many cases redemption,
but when affairs are once Strengthened
round the sharks will have lost their
opportunity to swell their purses with
unTighteous profits, and the holders of
properly will have the opportunity to
protect themselves if they 80 desire.
Those who have been compelled by tax
title sharks to pay extortionate prices
to redeem their land may have some
trouble to recover their money. Mr..
McCardy's opinion was that the
amount can be recovered by suit at
laW