The Roanoke times. (Roanoke, Va.) 1897-1977, 1897-11-18

been properly served il the sergeant was
acting as y private Individual, and made
his return conform with the reuuirerne tents
of section 1899 Such service would
have been equivalent to an order of pub
LEGATION, and ST ficient, in this case, I'M
der Acts 1S05-96, page 2l9
Whether or not it wouid be proper, I'M
der the circumstances of this case, tn as.
sumo that tEe service was made In the
prescribed mode, we do not decide. 1t is
not necessary here to determine whether
the service was defective or not, for, IL it
had been Insufficient it would not have
invalidated the deed.
The Legislature has, presumably with
the purpose of making more sta BILE titles
acquired under tax sales, provided in
section 6G1 of the Code, which section,
by the terms of Acts 1896, is made
part thereof. that title acquired as the
one in question has been is Subject to
be defeated only by proof that the taxes
or levies for which said real estate was
sold were not properly chargeable thereon,
or that the taxes or leves proper ly
chargeabe on such real estate have been
paid" 1t follows, from what has been
said, that no valid objection has been
shown to the deed, or to the proceedi ugs
which led to it's execution.
The second inquiry involves the order
OF priority between the tax lien aud the
vendors lien
This court has held in Simmons vs.
Lyle's administrator, SO Graf, 1852, that
taxes are prior lien to judgments OBJ
tanned and July docketed long prior to
the date at which the taxes were assessed
There is no distinction, in principle,
between the two cases. For the same
reason that the tax is held to be prior in
10 ha
preferred to the vendors lien That taxes
are prior in dignity to all other liens
must he SO from the very necessity Of the
case;otherwise the State would be power
less to collect hel revenue. The liens
upon the land would, a, in the case mt
bar, often be greater than the value of
the land, and. the tax lien being inferior
the land would escape all taxation The
provision In section GGl of the Code that
the right or title TO such estate. shall
stand vested in the grantee in such deed
ms 1T was vested, in the marty assessed
with the taxes or levies on account
whereof the sale was made" refers touthe
character OF the title that Shall he vested
In the grantee in such deed, whether it
be fee simple or otherwise 1t has no
reference to liens, and does not mean, as
commended, that the purchaser takes the
land subject to the liens resting thereon
at the time the taxes are assessed
The State, having bought the lot in
question under sale made to enforce it's
prior lien for taxes, took the title vested
in Clark, and all subsequent liens became
thereby exti"guished. Appellant, hav-
ing Ia the prescribed mode become the
purchaser from the State, stands in the
shoes of sthe commonwealth, and holds
the lot free from the vendor's lien now
aese rted against it. The holder Of the
vendors lien had the the right to protect
his lien by paying the taxes, and album
dant opportunity was afforded him by
the statute to redeem. Having failed to
avail himself OF these privileges, he can
not now mend his fortune by disturb.
lug the vested rights of others.
For these reasons. the decree appealed
from must be reverted and annulled, and
the bill filed by appellee dismissed.