The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1891-11-28
TITLE BY TAX DEED.
Judge Hanford Sustains the
Claimant in Possession.
THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.
Important Opinion by the United States
District Court-U. 8. District Court
News-New Suits.

possession OF land held by virtue of a tar deed
which will settle a large number OF cases where
the title Is at least doubtful. The case was that
Of Samuel Coulter against John A. Stafford. to
recover possession OF Land bought by defendant
nj sheriff 8 sale for delinquent taxes.
The defense had to bear the burden of tha
fight a. the almost fnvariabe rule has been
that the courts decide adversely to tax titles
upoa the least pretexr OF authority Messrs
Battle ehipley were counsel for the defense.
and plaintiff was represented by Tustin, Gesrin
Crews
The decision is In full az follows;
This il an action to recover real estateasitp.
aied in the city of Seattle. The pI aintiff c'ais
10 Do the owner in fee simple, deraigning his
title By means OF conveyance from a patentee
Of the United states. The defendant is in pos
session, having entered in the year 1885, claim
ing title By virtue OF a tax deed TO him executed
b. the sheriff pursuant to sale of the land in
1883, to H. J: Jacobs for Delinquent tax for the
year lSs2 The plaintiff disputes the validity of
the assessment and sale OF the property for said
tax and denies that the sheriff had any author
fly 70 make the deed. The case has been by
stipulation OF the parties tried without jury
and submitted to the court for Its decision of ali
questions involved.
On the trial objections were made to certain
deeds offered in evidence by the plaintiff and
my decisions oil the questions SO raised as to the
validity OF the said deeds was reserved / now
override said objections and give the plaintiff
the full teneft Oh all the evidence offered in his
behalf, and mold that the plaintiff is the owner
of the land and entitled TO Judgment as prayed
to his complaint unless the defendant acquired
valid title by the tax sale and sheriff's deed
or unless the action 10 barred by the statute OF
limitations. In 1882. the land in controversy az
part Of larger tract owned by Albert Carr, was
listed for taxation In the name of said Carr upon
the assessment roll o! King county Said assess
ment roll was made in the form prescribed by
statute, being ruled in columns 30 as to admit OF
descriptions oil property In the most convenient
and concise way. The tract referred TO, OF
which the property In controversy formed a
part, was described in the assessment roll fol-
lowing the owners name thus: an. K. IL OF s. W.
AofN w. Il of S. E. 4, %, Is, 4, 20, ST.
The figures In columns indicate, as shown by
explanatory headlines, section No. "20" town
ship No. "25, range No. 81" number of acres
inthe tract $780,. and road district No .s3l .
Iris description is accurate as far as Ii goes
objection is made to II, however, on the ground
that 1t is incomplete in this that it does not
specify township Is north and range east of the
willamette meridian, and this supposed ifnper-
lection in the description 10 tho basis of the
only point made against the regularity and
validity OF the assessment and sale OF the prop
erfy. In connection with this objection Il is
proper to note that ii is a matter of common
knowledge that King county is wholly north of
the parallel and east of the meridian, which are
land therein.
One objection to the tax deed il on the ground
that the original certificate of sale issued to
Jacobs was not produced to prove the assign
ment thereof to the defendant. The fact OF the
assignment was testified to on the trial by both
parties TO IL, Mr.. Jacobs and the defendant The
law In force at the time OF the sale secured to
the delinouent taxpayer right to redeem his
,and al any time within period OF three years
from the date of the sale, aud provided that in
case OF his failure to redeem within that time,
the holder OF the certificate of sale should bs
entitled to have deed executed BY the sheriff
OF the county, which should have the effect to
convey To him absolutely the title to the prop
erty. This land was not redeemed and on the
18th day OF July, 1885, which was more than
three years after the sale, deed was made by
the sheriff to defendant, purporting to be a
tax deed, pursuant to the above-men-
the right ss' th s ho ssoos Of Be sse
certificate TO have deed had matured by lapse
OF the time allowed for redemption, section
OF law comforting upon the sheriff all the author
ity which he had 10 execute the deed, was
amended by the addition Of proviso requiring
the holder OF the certificate To serve a notice
upon the person in whose name the land was
assessed. personally or by publication If he be
not found within the county. not less than sixty
days prior to the expiration of the time for re-
demption, and to make proof OF the giving of
such notice In q prescribed manner before he
should be entitled to receive deed. This man
oaory act ID general In Its terms, making no ex-
ceptions of cases in which the redemption
period was about to expire II repeats all con-
nieting statutes, and contains no saving clauses.
went into effect the same day. The 9th day of
May, 1856, was the last day of the three years
allowed for redemption of this property from
the tax SALE The time intervening bstween
9Th of May was only ninety-one days.
This time not sufficient considering the
usual delay In publication of the laws after
their passage. TO afford reasonable opportunity
Tor comp lance with the exactions of the new
law. Although Ii was for the reason just given
inprscticabs to comply with the requirements
OF this statute, tho plaintiff now insists that,
Without compliance no right 10 deed could
mature. because the law SO declares In plain
s msEdatory LANGUAGE; The defendant e. argn,
lug TO the contrary maintains that II the act be
construed literally IL would deprive him OF all
rights under his contract of purchase, AMI
therefore impair the obligation of contract.
and therefore render said act unconstitutional
and void The defendant also relies upon the
statute OF limitation bar 10 this action.
Section 1883 OF the code provides that: ANY
suit or proceeding for the recovery of lands sold
Tor taxes, except in cases where the taxes have
been paid or the land redeemed, as provided by
law, shall be commenced within three years
from the time OF recording the tax deed OF sale,
and not thereafter, except by the purchaser al
the tax sale"
The defendants deed was recorded more than
Three years before this suit was commencedi the
land was sold for TAX, which has not been paid,
aud II has not been redeemed. II the deed Is
heid TO be valid there can be no question but
what the case is iuliy within the statute anu
barred by il. The only argument in behalf OF
TIE plaintiff on this point is that the deed Is
void aud entirely impotent TO serve either as a
conveyance OF the title or as starter 20 set the
time running and bring the case within the
protection OF the statute. If the bar exists only
In cases where valid tax deeds have been re-
iermine whether a case is barred or not 10 try II
on Us merits. To so hold 10 equivalent To hold
ing mat the statute Is not bar In any case, Tor
III the deed conforms u the requirements OF the
law IN all respects IL will convey the title, aud
defendant claiming title under such deed must
prevail by reason ot having perfect titlei that
N 10 say, win the case on its merits. and II the
TAX deed he invalid by reason of non-oeservanee
o. any essential provisions OF the law the
Plaintiff cannot be defeated within any period
o. Tune. such doctrine Is contrary 10 the mani
lAs purpose OF statute OF limitations
10 put an end to strife by cutting of the right
70 dispute the validity of proceedings 10 diyest
me owner of his title after the lapse of DEN
hte period of time. The decisions of the SUI
freme court of the United states so maintain.
IN the opinion of that court, written by Mr..
Justice Grier In the ease of Pillow vs.. Roberts,
~ Howard, az, this language is used: statutes
o. limitations would &c OF little use II they pro-
teeied those only who could otherwise snow an
indeieas bic title Ia the land. Hence, color OF
Gue even under void and worthless deed, has
Aways been received as evidence that the per
sen IN possession claims for himself ana OF
course adversely To all the world. IN ofuer
70 ehtatie the defendant 70 set up the oar OF ths
statute, after five years adverse possession, ne
Ssa oaly TO show that he and those under whom
.e GAINED held under deed from collector OF
the revenue OF lands sold Tor the non pay
nient OF taxes lie was not bound 70 snow
slat ali The acquisitions of the law had oeeu
sampled with in order 10 make the deed saiia
eao lhueteasible conveyance OF the titte- II the
court should require such proof before de-
.shasnt could have the benefit OF TINS law IL
would require him 20 show that he had ne ueel
ne protection of the statute before ne coutd
70 entitled to u such n construction woutd
annul 1te act altogether, when was eNlushIs
intended To save the defendant from the d,hl-
. .aN after such length of time, oI showlnf
,ne validity OF his tax title. In the case OF
"tght vs.. Mattison, Is Howard, -. the court al
~ opinion quotes aud approves The above eA-
uact from the opinion in Pillow VS.. ROBERTS.
eeeuon @.si9 OF the code so far as II anects tnts
words 4