The Washburn leader. [volume] (Washburn, McLean County, N.D.) 1890-1986, 1892-01-09
That Tax Decision.
From Bismarck Tribune.)

From Bismarck Tribune.)
Perhaps never in the history of Dako-
tn has a decision been rendered by u court
that has as much financial interest TO the
citizens of a commonwealth as has the
decision reported i'll the Tribune's tele-
graphic columns yesterday in the case OF
Wallace VS.. Stutsman county. 1t is safe
to say that Il quarter of Il million dollars
rested upon the words that SHOULD fall III
iudicial u%tterance from the rObed justices
of the supreme court of the United States.
The Stutsman county tax case has been
before the courts for several years and
involved the question rs to whether u
purchaser of q tax certificate from a county,
at the treasurer's annual sale, should be
reimbursed by the county in case it should
turn out that his certificate was void;
whether he should receive from the county
the money he put in for the Invalid
certificate and the additional usurlous in
terests allowed in this class Of cases by the
laws of the commonwealth. The case first
came before the old territorial supreme
court and that tribunal decided that if a
person purchased Il certificate from the
county, the county was liable to the pur-
chaser for the face of the document and
20 per cent interest annually thereon.
From this order Stutsmanc county appealed.
Since statehood the state supreme court In
the case of Tyler VS.. cass county has had
the precise question before it and IN all
elaborate and exhaustive opinion by
Justice Bartholomew took the opposite
~position-that the rule of caveat emptor
a%pplied--that the legal maxim that che
who purchased must beware"-was in full
force in tax sale proceedings and the state
court accordingly ruled that the purchaser
of Il certificate that was afterwards declared
invalid lost his money invested. On the
c ,rrectness of this decision many a lawyer
and the bar Of the state have differed.
But Il decision has been rendered by the
last court known i'll tho Jurisprudence of
the United States. and they have declar-
ed that the views taken in the opinion by
Justice Bartholomew are the right ones;
that where n person invests his money i'll
an enterprise that under guise of law gives
Il rate of interest unknown to any legiti-
mate business, and it is afterwards declared
wrongfully invested, he loses it; that the
man who puts his money in II process that
is called by the law right, but which is no
m IRE morally SO thar the man who places
his money on the rolette wheel and hopes
to gain thirty. five for II and who loses
it, has no more reason to complain. In
other words, that the 'tax title shark" so
called, has no sympathy from the public.
and as he sows so must he reap. The
decision means that our state supreme
court has been upheld in a question over
which the best legal talent of the United
States has been counseling; that the coun-
ties of the state ave saved a large amount
a d that Burleigh county in particular is
$4,000 ahead by the decision.
Fo: the losing side the Tribune has no
sympathy. They put their money i'll as
N other gambler would-with hopes of
vast reward. Tley nave fared as many Il
gambler has in the past-risked and re-
ceivcd nothing. If ye will take chances
on receiving usury, you must also take
chances on getting nothing. They have
the latter. 10 our friend Banker Sheckel,
he of Iowa, who condemns our state court
as being prone to render decisions in favor
of the farmer and for political effects, this
decision is respectfully consigned; to our
friend Major Shaw, of the Fargo Argus,
who is SO afraid the state court will not
square themselves and who is opposed to
technicalities, this decision is respectfully
referred. The decision was rendered on
what the judges believed to be the law;
they SO declared it; the supreme court of
the United States has upheld them; our
Judges know what is the law and we are
glad of it. Let him be hurt who will.