The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1886-11-24
An IMl ORTAST DECISION
BY JUDGE JACKSON, IN THE U. S.
CIRCUIT COURT.
Tax T ties Acquired Under the War
Tax Of lS62 Void Uader Ger
tain Conditions.

The case Of W. ]. Smith sgainst Nc.
Neil, decided in the Uni ed stat, 4
Circuit Court yesterday bv Judge
Jackson, adversely to p aintiff, reviyes
memories of the war, and OF infamous
proceedings under the color of
law, by means Of which Il Q
riph'ful owners of land were robbed
of their property. Among all meas
ures OF this character, none WAS more
prolific OF hardship, glsrirg acts Of in.
justice and Wholesale confiscation OF
property. than the acts of June z,
1852, for the collection Of direct taxes
in the insurfeclionsry districts, and
the act of February 9, 1858, amenda.
tory thereof. These acts imposed
direct tax on lands and appointed
Board Of Commissioners to enfele the
collection OF the tax. These Commits
sioners adopted rule that virtually
amounted 20 the conf cation OF all
property belonging to owners absent
from home in the Confederate serv-
ice. II the tax was not paid the lands
were advertised Tor sale, and rule
was established compelling owners to
make tender OF payment in per-
son, and refusing 10 accept payment
from any but The ounsr IN person.
Under the operation OF
THIS INFAMOUS PROVISION
many OF the hest lands were sold
either TO the United States or 10
greedy land sharks, who on,y awaittd
the opportunity to possess themselves
in this iniqu tous manner OF property
which Tigntfully belonged TO others.
In most cast the outrage WIS submit
tad to without mmmur, and much
valuable property passed into the
hands of the land pirates who were in
waiting for the purpose. Some, how
ever, Tebelled at the glaring injustice
and invoked the aid Of the law to re-
store to them their own. To the latter
class belonged McNeal, the defendant
in the case dec ded yesterday. The
plaintiff was W. ]. Smith, the well
known politician, The plaintiff sued
an ejectment to obtain possession of
forty acres of land, aud relied for title
on q certificate issued by three United
States Commissioners, which certifed
that in 1854 W. j. Smith purchased the
land in question at sale Of land sold
for taxes due the United Safes. The
defendant relied upon two points to
ATTACK THE VALIDITY OF THE SALE.
Frst, that the DEF cIiption of the prop
erty was too vague and uncertain; and |
second, that the Commissioners made |
a rule to the effect that no one but
the owner in person would be allowed
10 pay the assessed taxes. In support
of this last point the dispositions OF
w. A. Beckford, John Johnson, John
White and j Lovin were read, all Of
whom testified that the rule was
rigidly enforced. After the conclusion
of the argument,
JUDGE JACKSON LOST NO TIME
In arriving at a decision. He decided
an instant's hesitation in
favor OF the defendant on both points,
aud held that whenever it was shown
by competent prof that the Commits
3ioners had es ablished and enforced
an uniform rule that they would re-
,eive the taxes from no one but the
owner in person, that such rule
avoided the GALE, and tender
On the Part OF the owner
through an agent or friend was I'M
necessary because it won d have been
Of no avail The decision Is Of great
mpor auce, az it virtually decides that
III sales made under the law were
Toid. Unfortunately for some, how.
'ver, they are without remedy, as in
nsny cases the right OF action has been
oct by allowing the purchasers to re-
main IN adverse person for 50 long
period that their title has bsen made
perfect by prescription. Those, how.
ver, who have RI sisted the law, and
an make the proof that the rule
bove adverled to was enforced, and
n this d strict that proof is EASILY
made, have only to sssert their rights
n the courts toIrecover their property.