The Washburn leader. [volume] (Washburn, McLean County, N.D.) 1890-1986, 1890-12-06
The Taxes Cases.

|
Richard L. Tyler, plaintiff and respond
ent, VS.. Cass county, defendant and appel
| liant.
The defendant county, through its treas
urer, sold certain lands for delinquent tax
es at the annual tax sale in October, 1886
The lands SO sold were part of the origi
nal grant by the general government te
Northern Pacific railroad company. The
lands were surveyed at the expense of tht
United States and earned by said com
pany after the passage of the act Of con
gress of July Is, 1870, pertaining to surve,
fees; and no part of such survey fees heG
been repaid to the United States at the
time of such sale. Prior to this assess
ment and levy of the taxes for which said
lands were sold the railroad company had
disposed of the lands and conveyed them
to third parties by deeds and contracts and
such third parties were in possession
Said lands were regularly assessed and all
the proceedings 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 we're not taxable
at the time of such assessment because the
United States held the fee title to said
lands and had lien thereon for the sur
veY fees.
(Northern Pacific railroad company VS..
ROGUE, 115 U. S. 600.)
But that since land was subject of tax
alton in Dakota Territory, prima facie
these lands were taxable. Taxation was
| the rule, freedom from taxation the ex-
ception.
2. Held, Further, That the assessor be-
ing judicial officer, where property is ex-
empt from taxation by class and not by
specific description, he has full jurisdic-
tion, and it is his duty to decide in each
instance, whether or not particular piece
of property falls within any of the exempt
ed classes, and in this respect the source of
the law that establishes the exemption is
immaterial.
8. Held, Further, That an erroneous de-
cision of On assessor in the matter of e1-
emptions does not deprive the tax pro-
ceedings of Jurisdiction: But until such
erroneous decision is modified or set aside
by the proper tribunal, all officers with
subsequent function may safely set there
on.
4. Upon right of recovery at common
law there is nothing in the case to relieve
plaintiff from the rule Of the caveatempt-
or, as announced by this court in the case
of Budge::vs. City of Grand Forks, decided
at this term.
5. Under the law in force, when such sale
was made the treasurer, in the matter of
the collection of the taxes was purely q
ministerial officer, and when he received
the duplicate tax list with the warrant of
the county commissioners attached, if such
process was fair on its face, and contained
nothing that would apprise the treasurer
of any defects or infrmities and in case
when it does not appear that the treasurer
had any knowledgs of any defects or mfr
mites, such treasurer was fully protected
from personal liabilities in collecting the
taxes upon all property contained in his
said list SO long as he acted strictly within
the statutes. The law furnished his au-
thority for selling property for delinquent
taxes. The warrant, with the tax list at
tached, gave him the subject upon which
to exercise such power and authority.
6. The statute Compiled laws, section
1921, which required the treasurer to
'sell all lands liable for taxes of any des-
cription for the preceding year or years"
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.
z. Section 1929, complied laws, then in
force, read as follows: "When by mistake
or wrongful act of the treasurer, land has
been. sold on which no tax was due at the
time, the county is to save the purchaser
harmless by paying him the amount of
principal and interest at the rate of IL per
cent per annum from the date of sale, and
the treasurer and his securities shall be
liable to the county to the amount on his
bond, or the purchaser 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.
Section 81 of chapter 1872, laws of North
Dakota for 1890, has no application to a
sale of lands made before the enactment
of said chapter. The court concluded it's
opinion as follows:
We find no ground upon which respond
ent has any right of recovery in this case.
The district court is directed to reverse its
Judgment and dismiss the case. Appel
liant to recover costs in both courts. Re-
versed. All concur.
The case in the State vs. Van Houten
was disposed of in the district court at
Bismarck yesterday. Van Houten was dis