The Roanoke times. (Roanoke, Va.) 1897-1977, 1897-12-18
LAND TAX CASE.
Opinion Handed Down in the Cir
cult Court Of Wise.

The Richmond Dispatch prints the fol-
lowing from its correspondent Mt Dwale,
Va, under date of December *: a cast.
has Just been decided in the circuit court
of Wise county in which considerable in
terest has conferred. The synopsis of the
case, rs briefly outlined in the Dispatch
last week, is as follows: About 45n acres
of coal land lying around Banner City on
the Norfolk and Western railroad, in
Wise county, was purchased from Hamil
ton Greer by the Gas and Coal Com pauy,
who afterward conveyed it to the Nir-
gnia Coal Company, and considerable
improvements were made on the land.
Sometime ago it developed that the land
was returned delinquent on account of
the non payment OF the taxes assessed
thereon for the year 1890. Under the late
act of the general assembly, John d.
Thomas. of Bristol, filed au application
to purchase this land from the common
wealth, and as the application regularly
matured, the purchase was male. Now,
the Virginia Coal Company brought suit
III judge Miller'S court to set aside the
title to Thomas by the commonwealth.
| The final decree OF the court in this
! case has Just been rendered and it is that
the mplainant's bill he, and the same
| is hereby dismissed The decree fur
ther recites that "no writ of possession
is awarded to the defendant" on account
| of some technicalities, Involving conflict
| ing claims to the land in-lspute, which
| said claims have never been adjudicated
in court OF justice. TWAS also decreed
| by the court that the defendant recover
of the complainant his costs expended in
this suit. 1t is said that tie com plain
ant will appeal from this decision.
Judge Miller gave a written opinion in
| this case to be filed with the papers,
which opinion will lie read with interest,
so far as il dmits OF general application,
! but there are peculiar or technical ques-
tions involved in this case, upon which
| the opinion CT the court will not be quoted
| in this correspondence, for the reason thai
| its application will be limited. Follow
ing Is the opinion in part, rs taken from
the records In this case:
The Virginia Coal Company US. John
ID. Thomas. Opinion.
| 1t would be almost, if not quite, "a easy
to write n biography of each member o!
the legislature from the foundation of
the commonwealth to the present time,
rs TO give an accurate history Of all the
delinquent tax legislation and decisions
! thereon during the same period
| 1t is we'll settled, however, that in tho
absence of "A curative statute, the burden
| is OH the purchaser under Lax sale to
| show that all the provisions OF the law
! intended for his benefit have been strictly
complied with.
! 1t is equally clear that it is within the
| legislative power to makessthc recitals ia
the decd prim. fac;a evidence of the reg
ularity or the proceedings, and thereby
shift the onus probandi on the owner
| The question of how far the legislature
= tt,..t 10. .l,.. II
not be defeated hv evider ce ali undo is one
of more difficulty.
The defendant in this case relies largely
upon section 66l OF the Code OF 1887 for
the validity of his deed. That section
provides that when the land has been sold
and the purchaser has obtained II deed
therefor and had the same duly recorded
in the county where the lana lies, that it
CT be defeated only ty proof that the
taxes or levies for which the land was sold
were not chargeable thereon. or that they
had been paid. This section from the
statements Of counsel, and so far as |
have been able TO ascertain, appears fer
the first time in the Code of 1887; so far
as know, it has been considered by the
court of appeals only once-viz., in the
case of Thomas vs.. Jones, reported in the
November (lS1D Virginia Law Register.
In reading said section, there can, TO my
mind, lie but one conclusion as to the LEG
islative intent, which is that after the
deed has been obtained and recorded no
attack shall he made upon the title passed
by it, except for the two causes men
toned in the section. Though there may
be other questions against which the leg
islature had not the right to shut the
door OF investigation. II is clear that it
attempted 10 exclude all others after the
deed mad been obtained and recorded.
Section 2G. chapter IS, Code Cf 1873,
provides that when the purchaser has OBJ
tanned deed according to the six preced-
ing sections, and within six months from
the date OF such deed cause the same to
be recorded in the court of the county or
corporation in which the real estate lies
shall be vested with the title passed by
The deed, Notwithstanding any Irregular
ties il the proceedings unless such irrcg-
ularites appear on the face thereof.
The differences between this section
and section 661 Code 1887, are very appa
rent and material. In the former section
the legislature does not even state the
irregularities which may vtatc the deed,
provided they appear on the face of the
proceedings, and does not even attempt |
to exclude evidence of facts of vital inn |
portance, which, in the latter section only |
two causes have been mentioned for |
which the deed may be deemed invalid,
and all the others expressly excluded.
1t will also be observed that neither Of |
the sections aforesaid change the gene
raj rule on which tax titles Test, until |
after the deed mad been obtained and ad.
mitted to record 1t is therefore, all i'm
port9nt to discriminate between cases II
which the proceedings have been attacked |
before the deed was made and recorded, |
X 10 Lao