Jamestown weekly alert. [volume] (Jamestown, Stutsman County, D.T. [N.D.]) 1882-1925, 1890-12-04
AN IMPORTANT DECISION.
The Supreme Court Rcverscs the
Decision in the n. II. Tax
Title Case,
Opinions Handed Down in II
Number Of Other Stutsnam
County Cases.
Stutslnan County, as it is Told
About in the Sunday Argus
Writc-llp.
Supreme Court Decisions.

Supreme Court Decisions.
The state supreme court met at Grand
Forks Friday and handed down a num-
ber of decisions. The most important
of these was in the Northern Pacific tax
title case from Cass county, in which the
decision of the lower court was reversed
and decision rendered in favor of the
county. The principle involved in this
case is the same as that at issue in the
we'll known case from this county which
is now in the United States supreme
court and the amount of such certificates
issued by this county is said to be about
$4,000. In view OF the Importance of
the case the full text OF the decision IS
given:
Richard l.. Tyler, plaintiff and respon-
dent. VS.. Cass county, defendant and
appellant.
The defendant county, through it's
treasurer, sold certain lands FOR delin-
quent taxes at the annual tax sale in
October, 1885. The land so sold wus a
part of the original grant by the general
government to the Northern Pacific rail
road company. The lands were surveyed
at the expense Of the United States and
earned by said company after the passage
of the act Of congress of July 10, 1870,
pertaining to survey fees; and no part OF
such survey fees had been repaid to the
United States at the time of such sale.
Prior to this assessment and levy OF the
taxes for which said lands were sold the
railroad company had disposed Of the
land and conveyed them to third parties
by deeds and contracts and such third
parties were in possession. SAID lands
we're regularly assessed and all the pro-
ceedings leading up to the tax sale were
regular. Plaintiff bought the lands at
such tax sale and brings this action to
recover the purchase money he paid.
Held, That such lands were not taxa
BILE at the time of such assessment be-
cause the United States held the fee title
to SAID lands and had lien thereon for
the survey fees.
Northern Pacific Railroad company VS..
Rocue, lis U. S. 600.
But that since land was subject of
taxation in Dakota territory, prlma facie
these lands we're taxable. Taxation was
the rule, freedom from taxation the ex-
ception. ~,
2. Held, further, That the assessor
being judicial officer, where property
is exempt from taxation by class and not
by specific description, he has full juris-
diction, and it is his duty to decide in
each instance, whether or not a particu-
lar piece of property falls within any Of
the exempted classes, and in this respect
the source of the law that establishes the
exemption IS immaterial.
3. Held further, That an erroneous
decision OF an assessor IN the matter OF
exemptions does not deprive the tax pro-
ceedings of Jurisdictions: but until such
erroneous decision is modified or set
aside by the proper tribunal, all officers
with subsequent function may safely act
thereon.
L. Upon right of recovery at COM
mon law there is nothing IN the case to
relieve plaintiff from the rule of caveat
emptor, as announced by this court in
the case of Bulge VS. City Of Grand
Forks, decided at this term.
5. Under the law in force when such
sale was made, the treasurer, in the mat
ter of the collection of the taxes was
purely ministerial officer, and when he
received the duplicate tax list with the
warrant of the county commissioners at
tached, if such process was fair on its
face, and contained nothing that would
apprise the treasurer of any defects or
infirmities and iE a case when it does
not appear that the treasurer had any
knowledge Of any defects or lntirmihes:
such treasurer was fully protected ffom
personal liabilities in collecting the taxes
upon all property contained in his aid
list SO long as he acted strictly within
the statutes. The law furnished his au-
thority for selling property for del in
%px yNl,n ont u1ft q IN ".
list attached gave him the subject upon
to exercise such power and authority.
G. The statute Compiled Laws, sec-
ton 1921 which required the treasurer
to .'sell all lands liable for taxes of any
description for the preceding year or
wears" meant all lands liable for taxes as
shown by the process in his hands. he
could not refuse to sell lands on his LIST,
nor could he sell lands not on his list
7. Section 1629, Compiled Laws,
then in force, read as follows, "When by
mistake or wrongful act of the treasurer
land has been sold on which no tax vas
due at the time the county is to save the
purchaser harmless by paying him the
amount of the principal and interest at
the rate of - per cent per annum f'om
tho date of sale, and the treasurer and
his sureties shall be liable to the county
to the amount on his bond, or the pur-
chaser may secure the same directly
from the treasurer"
Held, that the sale Of lands IN this
case was neither the mistake or the
wrongful act OF the treasurer within the
meaning OF said section.
8. Section 81 of chapter 132, laws of
North Dakota for 1890, has no appica-
ton to a sale of lands made before the
enactment of said chapter. The Durt
concluded it's opinion as follows:
We find no ground upon which re-
spondent has any right OF recover! in