Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1897-12-16
LAND TAN CASE.
on,pion Handed Down in the Cir-
omit Court of Wise.

o.tngou Handed Down III the NiR-
cult Court Of Wise.
correspondence OF the Dispatch)
rV.rE VA. December IA case
f,st been decided in the Circuit Court
., wise county in which considerable
.-.s-.st has centered. The synopsis OF
me case. as briefly outlined in the Dis
...-s last week is as follows: About 4'O
.-ras of coal land lying around Banner
--v ON the Norfolk and Western rail-
--.d. in Wise county, was purchased from
Hamilton Greer by the Gas and Coal
company. who afterward conveyed II 10
.rs Virginia Coal Company, and consld-
.--rrs improvements were made on the
r.ra. Sometime ago it developed that the
---d was returned delinquent on account
tr- non-payment of the taxes assessed
.rarson for the year 1881. Under the late
..r Of the General Assembly, John H.
-somas. OF Bristol, filed an application
o.. purchase this land from the Common
wealth. and as the application regularly
ratured the purchase was made Now
rs Virginia Coal Company brought suit
.- Judge Miller's court to set aside the
tile granted to Thomas by the common
alth.
The final decree Of the Court in this
e. So has Just been rendered, and is that
The compliments bill be, and the same
- hereby. dismissed" The decree further
-scites that mo writ of possession Is
.warded 10 the defendant on account
.f some technicalities, involving connect
.. Dr., claims TO the land in dispute, which
ed. claims have never been adJudicated
f- court Of Justice. IL was also decreed
f.. the Court that the defendant recover
. the complainant his costs expended
.- fniy suit. 1t is said that the. COM
ranant Will appeal from this decision.
Judge Miller gave a written opinion IN
this case to be filed with the papers,
which opinion viii be read with interest
e.. far as it admits of general application
L.t there are peculiar or technical ques-
tons involved in this case, upon when
'.- apiuion Of the Court Will not be
Quoted I'm this correspondence, for the
-asan that It's application will be limited.
Following IS the opinion in part, as taken
from IN. records in this case:
-a Virsinia Coal Company vs. John ID.
Thomas. Opinion.
u would be almost, if not quite, as
easy 90 write a biography of each mem
DR. of the Legislature from the founda-
tim u the Commonwealth TO the present
tua as 10 give an accurate history OF
81. the delinquent tax legislation and de-
.s1-s thereon during the same period.
absence of a curative statute, the burden
s .l the purchaser under a tax sale TO
show that all the provisions of the law
l,rled for his benefit have been strictly
implied With.
E is equally clear that it is within the
legislative power 20 make the recitals IN
tts deed prima facia evidence OF the
regularity Of the proceedings, and thereby
shift the 0nus probandi on the owner.
llg question Of how far the Legislature
can go Ga providing that the deed shali
a.t be- defeated by evidence ali undo Is
one of more difficulty.
The defendant ia this case relies largely
upon section 6Gl of the Code OF 1881 tor
the validity OF his deed. That section
provides that when the land has been
sold and the purchaser has obtained "a
deed therefor and had the same duly re-
corded u the county where the land Hes,
That &, can be defeated only by proof
That The taxes or leyies for which the
land was sold were not chargeable there
oH. or that they had been paid. rms
section from the statements OF counsel
ana s0 far as / have been able 10 ascer-
tain. appears for the first time IN the
Code Of lss7; SO far as / know, II mas
been considered by the Court of Appeals
only oLce-yz.. IN the case Of Thomas
"...."H itlDILt4 III NAAN wv
ttJ Virginia Law Register. In readlns
aId section. there can. TO my mind, be
Out one conclusion as TO the legislative
INTENT which is that after the deed mas
Deem obtained and recorded no attack
shal DE made upon the title passed by H.
except for the two causes mentioned IN
NE section Though there may be other
Questions against which the Legislature
DAD not the right 20 shut the door OF m
NesigatiOn. II Is clear that il attempted
20 exclude an others after the deed had
Deem obtained and recorded.
Section 70. chapter 49, Code Of 1873,
provides that when the purchaser has
obtained a deed according 20 the six pre-
eellIg sections. and within six months
Rom the date Of such deed. cause the
same 10 DC recorded I'm the court OF the
county or corporation In which the real
estate lies. hes shall be vested with the
l,e passed BY the deed, Notwithstanding
any irregularities in the proceedings
unless such irregularities appear on the
iace thereof.
The differences between this section
and section Col. Code 1881. are very APP
parent and material in the former sec
lion the Legislature does not even state
NE irregularities which may vitsate the
ueed provided they appear on the face
o. the proceedings, and does not even
attempt 10 exclude evidence Of facts Of
vital importance which. in the latter Sec
Ton only two causes have been mem
toned for which the deed may be deemed
Invalid and all the others expressly ex-
GUIDED
II viii also be observed that neither OF
me sections aforesaid change the gene
isl rule on which tax titles rest, until
after the deed had been obtained ana
admitted 70 record. II Is. therefore, all
important 10 discriminate between cases
IN which the proceedings have been at
'acked before the deed was made ana
recorded, and IN cases which seek to set
%slde the deed Ia the former the pur-