The herald., 1897-08-12

taxes, passed March %, 1895; petitioners
contention being that his duty is to ad-
vertise and sell the same to the person
who would take the least quantity OF
land and pay such bond, with accrued
interest and COSTS
'The legislature of this state. in 1893
passed what is commonly denominated
the bond act" says Judge Allen. This
act provided, among other things, When
ever any payment, either upon the prin-
cipal or of the interest shall not be made
when the same is due, and the holder of
the bond thereupon demands in writing
that the said treasurer proceed to adver-
| tise and sell said lot or parcel of land,
! then the whole bond, or its unpaid re-
mainder, with it's accrued interest, shall
become due and payable Immediately,
| and on the day following shall become
delinquent. and the city treasurer shall
have and shall act thereafter with all the
powers and duties OF the tax collector
in the collection of unpaid state and
county taxes, and shall forthwith pro-
ceed to advertise and sell said lot or par
eel of land by proceedings in all respects
the same as are provided by law for the
collection of delinquent state and county
taxes -
When this act was passed the pro-
cedure for the sale of real property for
the collection of delinquent state and
county taxes was for the officer to sell
the property assessed for such taxes to
the person who would take the leas;
quantity of the land to pay the taxes
and costs due thereon. In the revenue
act of 1895 this procedure Is changed, so
that instead of selling the property it is
made the duty of the tax collector to
enter upon the delinquent assessment
book, Sold to the state" all such real
estate delinquent, and he shall be credit
ed with the amount of the taxes due and
delinquent in his settlement. This act
of 1895, which 80 changed such manner
of procedure, while repeating all acts
in conflict herewith, provided that the
time and manner of sales of real prop
erty sold to pay the damages, costs and
expenses incident to the laying out,
widening streets, etc. should not be af-
fected by said act; but as to it's effect
upon the act of 1S93 known as the bond
act, the act of 1895 is silent.
In the case a. bar, if we are to con-
strue the act of 1898, known as the bond
act, as having been affected by the pro-
visions of the revenue act of 1895, as re-
latblg TO the procedure for the enforce
ment of delinquency, we must conceds
that it was in effect repeal Of the first
named act, for, under the procedure of
the act of 1895, no boEd, issued under the
act of 1893 would be of any avail and,
concedirg the constitutional power of
the legisia ture to make the state an un-
willing purchaser in all sales, whether
the state is interested or not, we do not
think it the intention to make the state
a purchaser on account of default ir
street bond given for an assessment on
account of ihe Improvement of a street.
nor do we believe the legislature in
tended, by the revenue act of 1895, to re-
peal the bond act, nor to lvalidate it.
Being of the opinion, therefore, that
the act in force ir 1898, relating to the
procedure of sale of real estate delin-
quent on account of the non-payment
of such street bord, is still in force, unaf-
fected by the revenue act of 1895, the
writ should issue, unless the petition in
intervention filed by the lot owner is suf-
ficient answer to such application. This
irregularty exists in the proceedings
leading up to the issue of the bond, in
this regard, that the contract entered
.nto between the street superintendent
and the contractor was not made in the
manner provided by law, and therefore
invalidates the bond.
Petitioner does not question the righ,
of the owner of the lot to so intervene,
and assuming, without deciding, that
such right of Intervention exists, we are
called upon to determine whether the
omission charged is such as to affect the
validity of the bond This omission re-
lates wholly to the date fixed in the
contract for the completion of the work.
the time designated in the contract
being as follows: The work to be COM
menced within ten days from the date
hereof and its completion to be within
240 days thereafter Intervenor's con-
tention is that the time for the comence-
ment of the 240 days is uncertain.
LAS the case now stands this is not an
authoritative decision upon the question.
The question yet being open, this court
is of opinion that the word thereafter
relates to the date of the contract, and
no uncertainty exists. But, in addition
to this, the bond act provides that such
bonds. upon issuance, shall be conclus-
i've evidence of the regularity of all pro-
ceedings thereto previous to the max
ing of the certified lists, etc. There is
no claim that he work was not properly
done within 240 days from the date of
the contract, and if it even be admitted
that an uncertainty exists it is cured
4 =, go
of mandate will issue as prayed for"
ON A CONTRACT