Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1886-01-13
wEDNRspAY..JANUARY 10, 1856.
Del,nouent Lands.

done q that described In the following
letters. There ought to be ample pro-
lection for innocent purchasers. Take
The case of lands sold under order Of .
court, whore money is left in the hands
of the commissioners to pay oil back
taxes-these having been ascertained-
and the commissioners fail to pay the
taxes, and yet these lands are sold for
taxes. Here is . case Of such fragrant
wrong that there can be no justification
forit. There are thousands of differing
cases. The Commonwealth must not
be allowed to take advantage Of her
own wrong. 1t is maxim of the COM
mon law that it is better to allow ninety
nine guilty men to escape than to put
to death one innocent man. The
same rule ought to hold good with
the State; for it is an incapable
crime for the Commonwealth to sell the
home Of . taxpayer because Of the
laches Of her own officers. We repeat
that receipt for 1885 or for any other
year ought to be at least prima facie
evidence that all taxes previously levied
had been paid. This objectc be par
TALLY accomplished by requiring collec-
tors to put to the credit of the oldest
tsx-bill any money paid on account Of
taxes upon real estate. Thus an inno-
cent purchaser would be notified the first
time he tried to pay his taxes that the
Commonwealth had claim against his
land. Again: Notice of all such liens
ought to be given by memorandum on
the margin Of the deadlock where
in the deed to the lands is
recorded, for though the title
to lands may pass by Inheritance
and pass whilst such a lien is upon
them, yet in such cases the purchaser
or inheritor is not innocent. He must
pay the taxes Of his decedent. But the
title to all lands purchased with money
passes by deed, and every deed is or
ought to be recorded. So that every
purchaser land all persons who come to
an estate in lands in any other way
than by inheritance are, in the eyes of
the law, purchasers would have notice
Of whatever State liens there might be
upon his lands.
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY, VA,
January 9, 1886.
To the Editor of the Dispatch:
You are right; the delinquent lands
ought to be marked on the margin OF
the deed-books, so everybody buying
could see it. 1t is no so-called careless
ness of the buyer; It is the negligence
Of the State to protect the people.
Look back from 1865 up to now. How
many sheriffs have cried out " broke "
when they had the taxes to collect
People paid their taxes to them and
have lost their receipts, and the sheriffs
returned them delinquent to protect
themselves, and not caring whether the
receipts were ever found or not. Just
look back; how many treasurers have
failed and done the same thing as the
sheriffs did? Many time taxes are
returned when they can be collected. |
knew Q collector to return the taxes
on . tract of land last year, and at the
same time on the farm were good crop
OF corn and four good COWS and many
other things to pay the taxes--ten times
the amount. No excuse. The Legisla-
ture ought TO commence from 1880 aud
sell from that time up to now. ! know
nan that is dead. His widow is fifty
miles away. Another man paid his
taxes here on his farm and has the re-
ceipts. That man is dead, too. Now,
If that land is returned delinquent, how
can the widow show 1t has been paid =?
She has no receipt for Ave years, to my
knowledge. The law requires the clerk
of q court when land is to be sold by a
commissioner to advertise publicly
whether the commissioner has given
bond or not. That protects the people.
Now let the clerk put on the margin Of
the deed-book taxes that are due and
save the people from Malone again.
Yours truly,
TAXPAYER.
To the Editor of the Dispatch
A communication under the signature
Of "Tax Payer " in your issue Of the
7th deserves, l think, something more
than passing notice. His conclusions
in the first part of his article are so
clearly right that no reasonable ran
could demur, and one wonders why be
did not stop right there. But when be
takes up the case ofinnocent purchasers
hs seems to be entirely ct sea. His
arguments, $50 called, are entirely at
variance with his former just conclu.
sions. Evidently be has I" not been
there" Now, l propose to leave argu-
ment to wiser heads and abler pens
than mine, and confins myself to q
few facts that come directly within the
scope Of my own knowledge and OBJ
servation. One case Of this !. so-called"
Innocent purchase is that offs widow lady
living In cur town. Her husband some
ystrs sincs had some monsy left him,
which h invested h real estate for the
bsss6t Of his wife and children. lie
died shortly AFTER. and the only supper.
ofthe widow and several children Is the
proceeds Of said investment. Now
comes out State claim for about 400
for back taxes that accrued, nobody
knows how and nobody knows when,
save the fact that 1t vas eli long before
ths purchase BY her late husband. Is
this : case ID which eprs6x " 50 call
y" would be 10 any sense appfopri-
stss might cits dozens Of cases, but
one more viii suffice. Over ton years
~ gentleman purchased house and
" nd paid fos e but before doing 20
80 : oonpstsnt lsgal friend to the
county clerks Office 70 sxamins titles,