Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1899-11-17

Yesterday was opinion-day I'm the SUI
Ilame Court. and thirteen opinions were
handed down. the most important and
Interesting being one in which il was
l,id by tho Court that deed for delin-
qlcnt real estate. made by court clerk
under the provision Of section C66 as
amended. commonly known as tho 'land-
grabbers' law can ba defeated only by
showing that the taxes for which the
land was sold were paid. or chat the pro-
perty was not properly chargeable there
w.th.
There were various irregu.arlueg alleged
70 set aside the deed. among them that
tho owner. 40 the date Of the deed. had
10 notice OF the fling Of the application.
ard hence uo "due process OF law" but
she Court held that this, as wCu as all
tho other Irregularities alleged were not
euficient Co set aside the deed. as an such
Cofects were barred by section 65l of the
code.
FACTS N THE CASE.
The case was that OF the Virginia Coal
Company VS.. John ID. Thomas, from the
Circuit Court Of Wise county. Tho coal
company is in possession ana claims title
O. arI formerly owned by Grccar, which
Ia. ~ AtL.fM AtlLlllIAtIlL INI taxes
Que .u l.a.. Tt was advertised 40 the De-
canl.r term Of the County Court in 1891.
and brought in by the Commonwealth az
3he April -.rm 1925. I'm April. 1851 Thomas
applied fo purchase from Commonwealth,
ana having fully complied with the law.
deed Wa made him by The Clerk of the
County Court. November l3. 1897 which
was recorded the same day. The coal
company filed bin praying that this
te.. oe cancelled as cloud upon its
title.
Orly ous objection Of the many alleged
AGAINST The deed .- of sufficient impor-
lance tor considers ti0n-viz.. Whether
tta sale ot This ltnl was adjourned from
court f1 court iu Whr0ken continuity
uru sIs Was finally made az the April
term. ISL and that not, as q conse-
a.tn-a NJ such omission. and sale was
without notice and O. nullity.
THE DECISION.
H.l. our statute Code section 6il,
provides that where q purchaser has OBJ
tame. Decd for land purchased at q
Tx la which has been duly recorded,
tae rrs thus acquired cam only De de-
.0- hy proof that tho taxes We're not
property Chargeabie thereon or if so
Dr-.ltle have been paid Thomas hav-
i- .rly complied with all the require
Du within the protection of section
and II this statute be valid ANA bind
ir bis right can Doe defeated only by
slowing thar tho taxes were not proper
81 .aareeable OF had been paid.
There can be mo question that this sta
t makes "a prima iacie case, at the
for Thomas AS 10 an almost lden-
t law Of Iowa. which made the deed
I-m fqcle evidence in AN courts as 10
United States
Court said in Callahan VS.. Hurley. % a..
S. .s-: The whole act exhibits am in-
tllou OF tho legislature TO enforce
tl. vmenl Of taxes by securing pur-
.rs at tax sales, thus making il dam
g.tous for owners to neglect payment
,. taxes. It removes difficulties in The
Nar ~ establishing a tax ttle. yet WORKS
Old injustice 90 owners OF lana SUBJECT 10
taxation. The Jaw determines when the
taxes shall De- levied and paid, and gives
tuile time no make payment If the act
. to have any erect az AN, IL IS plain chat
ODE dcea8 cut on most Of the avcrmenis
. which plaintiffs rely for cancellation.
.nuns may only aver and prove ale
'0ns that the property was not sub
.. 10 taxation. and that there was
fauluient combination Of the defendant
N'h others 20 prevent bidding The deeds
iuma facle evidence thar the property
.ANINEl lr LatfAANIs MFt AT" lNANN
Affirmative evidence by the statute.
I fhis case the avermeuts are denied.
h testimony ST. conflicting and incOn-
te as 90 The fact on which the con-
uo 50 depends. and the decision Of the
'r below must stand unless deemed
V'reous An appellate court Will not
.re.e il unless satisfied that 10 is wrong.
a.. devolvcs IN party complaining 10
error. and TO satisfy appellate court
'-a. the decision is wrong. shipman ys.
cher % Va. and cases cited.
hut our statute. section CJ. goes
even further than the Iowa statute.
making the deed conclusive upon an ques-
.pns involved save only when the taxes
were NOT properly chargeabie or had been
I.H
The sale was duly advertised and
was. in fact made. The hiatus. If any.
.N me continuity Of the proceedings. oc-
,-iitd In The failure Of the County Trea-
-L.i To adjourn The sale al The January
'ein OF The court II that were so IL
olii nave worked no actual injury 10
'' IahuoWner. The sales were held I'm
.-oi "aIee with the original advertise
'DeI,S ~ the February term. and were
,-y.utned 10 The March term. and from
wat term 10 the April term, when the