The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1891-11-28

40, to the objection, that il should be shown
ottica nuu nad been regularly sold, and that the
Size 4. no executed the deed had authority to
give It. they saw: ~
"But If this Is a cor,ec, ,,t.,v 80
-. " perceive any object in passing il For
s,,so., sne public authorities have proceeded
assss.in ae.eoroing to law in listing the lands
., r. tue TAX, making demand for the same
.. .he proper time and place. advertising for
go pay nent OF tax, ETC., and have observed Ali
cs, reg uirements Of the statutes up to the eye
Ease must convey good title or our revenue
,ams are iiiusory, and the power of the govern
art n. 20 raise means by taxation upon the prop
city OF It's citizens necessary for ira ovn M
PoIt ana action is entirely impotent aud vsIp
s nu. We think party cannot be required 10 show
hasar nis TAX deed has been regularly obtained
No. ne GAINED the protection of this statute,
slnce such construction re ders the law un,
necessary and useless
ne lapse of time limited by such statutes not
rinSs, naIrss the remedy but il exinguishes the
tiEnt ano vests perfect title in the adverse
noider ut tells the entry of the person having
snc Iight, and consequently, though the very
h3s a ~ Ia me defendant yet he cannot justify
stocker vs. Berry, Lord Raymond, 74I: Tsylor
w horde, ii Burr, co; Barwick vs. ThomDson
g. Term KEEP, 4s2; Beckfore VS.. Wade, IL Yes. ir.
o., Moore vs. Luce, % Pa. 260; THOMPSON vs.
Gfeen, Z Ohio ST., 233; Newcombe W. Leayitt
x Ala, 65l; Wynn VS.. Lee, Ga, 2I7: Gales VS.
Jones, Dana. 49,
Inese decisions are controlling because this
couIt cannot disregard a rule established by the
solemn judgments of the highest court ~ TIC
nasion ana Tor the further reason that in adopt
Ins statute OF Wisconsin alter IL had been con-
strued by the decisions of the highest court of
.nal state, IL must be conclusiyely presumed
tnat the legislature intended 10 adopt the deci-
law ' isssef Vi VIC
The grounds of the objection to it do not ap-
pear on the lace OF the defendants tax deed
therefore this case Is TO be distinguished from
the case of Moore VS.. Brown. II Howard. in
wnich II was held by majority OF the justices
OF tne supreme court that statute of Illinois,
VI peculiar pattern, providing that actions to
recover real estate of which any person NAV be
possessed by actual residence thereon,
having title deducible OF record
or from any officer authorized 70
sell the same for non payment of taxes or upon
execution shall be brought within seven years
next after possession being taken. was not
meant to give protection to q pers on in nosses
sion under "a deed void upon the face of il
Another case cited by counsel for the plaintiff
mat was suit 20 redeem land from q sale for
taxes The purchaser had obtained a deed
without having complied with statute similar
No ours prescribing notice to be given, as
statute OF limitations OF that state was pleaded
as defense. The court held that as the re-
CURED notice was not given the officer who
executed the deed was without authority to do
so; that Notwithstanding such lack OF authority
the deed was not void, that it operated to trans
ier inc title to the property, but not to
cut on the right of redemption, and while
that right continued the statute of limita-
lions could not begin to run. III could con-
cur IN that decision and follow 1t in this case
would be bound to render judgment against the
piaintin on the ground that az action at law to
recover real property is not maintainable in a
circuit court of the United States against the
owner OF the legal title and leave him to apply
toa court OF chancery for such relief as he
might obtain there by bin to redeem Sly
Held VS.. Healy. 81 Fed. Rep. 2, was also suit in
equity to redeem, and therefore not in point in
this case. am unable to find in any of the au-
thorities cited by counsel for the plaintiff sup
port for his contention.
II is my opinion that this case is barred by
the statute OF limitations of this state aboee
quoted. On that ground there must be a judg-
ment for the defendant, and IL is unnecessary
for me to express an opinion upon the other
questions which have been argued.