The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1896-01-16
A TAX TITLE VALID.
Failure of an Attempt to Re-
move a Cloud From a Title.
Question OF Assessment and Notice as
to Time of NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS.
by Judge Langley.

Under a ruling Of Judge Langley in the
superior court yesterday a tax title On
which the period OF redemption had ex-
pired gives an absolute title 10 certain
lands covered by the deed. HE ruling af-
fects 10 acres particularly described as the
west half of the southeast quarter and the
southeast quarter OF the southwest quar-
ter. section 9, township q north, range 3
east. The case was that of Z. NJ. Her
rick VS., L. X. Niesz. Ada B. Niesz. Dexter
Horton & Co. Samuel Diebert and Henry
s. Diebert, an action brought TO cancel
tax deed as cloud upon the title TO the
land. Herrick's contention was based first
on the ground that the assessment OF the
land for taxation was void for want OF
proper descriptions by tracts or parcels"
and consequently that the deed was void.
and secondly. that, admitting the validity
OF the assessment, the deed st.ll was void
for want Of notice OF the time when the
redemption expired. The court ruled
against petitioner on both these grounds.
The law in force at the date of the as
sessment In controversy required the as
SCISSOR 70 describe the lands by separate
tracts or parcels" and the question raised
was whether the description embraced
more Than ore tract or parcel On this
point Judge Langley said:
IF the law of this state required, as is
the case in some OF the states. lands to be
listed by their smallest legal subdivision
this description would undoubtedly be
faulty, as containing three such subdi-
visions of forty acres each. But we have
no such requirement here. The law OF this
assessment made no mention of subdi-
visions. The section, town and range in
which the land lies must be given and
within the section the tract or parcel
must be designated with such certainty
that the owner from that source alone
IL.
taxation. The assessor might have de-
scribed the land by metes and bounds, but
perhaps for greater convenience he chose
the subdivisional methods. Either would
show the same property compact body
of land containing 100 acres, described in
language as clear and certain as an expert
scriveRor would employ In preparing a deed
of conveyance of the same premises. except
the authorizations expressly authorized by
law. In fact, the assessors description
was afterward followed by W. p. Sayward.
the owner at the date OF the assessment.
when deciding the same property 10 this
plaintiff. / think Sayward and the plant
iff had all the opportunities the law af-
fords to know that this particular land was
being assessed and taxed, and omitted 10
care for the demands Of the state and
county at their peril. The land having been
legally assessed / find no fault with the
subsequent proceedings, including It's sale
for delinquent taxes thereon. The law
then allowed the owner three years from
the date OF sale in which to redeem his
land, which he failed to do
The pleadngs in the case showed that
the sale was made May 6. 1884, and that
IL was followed by a deed In due form
May %, 1887; while the act requiring the
purchaser TO give sixty days notice OF the
date when redemption would expire was
passed February 3. 1886, nearly two years
after the sale. Passing to this point, the
court said:
This brings us to plaintiffs second con-
tention, viz: that the tax deed Is void for
want OF the notice required by the act of
1856 which must be held as well taken II
that act applies TO sales made prior TO thu
date of it's passage As usual in a close
research of the law relating to taxation.
authorities are found on both sides Of the
proposition, one class holding that the
legislature has power after sale to alter
the terms and conditions upon which the
purchaser may have his deed, the other
that the law in force at the date OF sale
fixes the rights of the parties, which can
not be adversely affected by subsequent
legislation. l think the latter holding the
sounder doctrine and consistent with the
inviolability OF contracts.
The power OF a sovereign state TO work
by operation Of law an absolute forfeiture
OF taxable property for the non-payment
OF the lawful exactions assessed against
it and pass the title of such property from
the owner over TO a person who will dis
charge the claims Of the state according to
the forms OF law IS too well recognized In
this country 10 admit Of question or doubt.
Under such proceedings the state and the
purchaser are the contracting parties
within the terms of the law. 1t these give
the right to purchase on fixed conditions
the purchaser takes subject TO no others.
II they provide for redemption he must
abide the redemption period II for the pay
ment OF accruing taxes pending redemp-
tion he must pay accordingly and every
substantial requirement OF his purchase
he must strictly perform OF these he
buys with notice and unless the state by
its organic law or general statute has
reserved to itself the power TO modify such
terms and impose upon the purchaser new
and additional conditions to the corsurn-
nation OF his title by deed it would have
no higher right 10 do so than either party
10 a private contract would have to mate
rally alter its terms without the consent
Of the other. If the state could impose
one additional burden upon the purchaser
Il could impose many. and every purchas-
er az a tax sale would hold his rights, not
by the law Of the purchase, but subject to
the caprice Of the legislature, which might
be exercised TO postpone his deed indefn-
itely or burden his purchase with condi-
tons altogether foreign 10 the terms OF
the contract. Here the purchaser waited
three years for hts deed and after fun
compliance with the conditions OF his con-
tract received IT, the effect OF which was
to divest all former owners OF title to the
land in controversy AMI vest the same I'm
the holder Of the tax deed When the pur-
chaser parted with his money he had a
right TO expect the state would exercise its
rover 10 make his purchase absolute by
deed with title IN fee-sirnpIe at the end OF
the redemption period This was the law
OF the purchase and this was the contract.
the obligation OF which ought not 10 be
impaired ny giving retroactive force to the
law of 1855.
From these considerations n follows
that plaintiff can take nothing by his &C
ton. that his complaint should be dis
missed for want % equity. am that the de-
PENDANT Niesz have the relief prayed for
by his cross-c0mplaint"