Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1899-12-21
COURT DECISIONS.
,otes Of Cases {. a Recently Decided De-.
Which are Of Interest to
Our PEOPLE.
DIoEsTED BY w. 3. MARTIN.
Exclusively for virglnian-Pilo,.,
DIoEsTED az W. 8. MARTIN.
VA. COAL co. v. THOMAS.
Exclusively for virginian-Pilos.,

Supreme Court Of Appeals Of Virginia.
November is, 1899.
SECTION s61 OF THE CODE, PRO-
Il VIDING THAT A TAX DEED CAN
ONLY BE DEFEATED BY PROOF
THAT THE TAXES WERE NOT
CHARGEABLE. OR HAD BEEN
PAID. is NOT UNCONSTITUTION-
AL. AS A TAKING OF PROPERTY
I. WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF
LAW.
THE FAILURE OF A TAX
DEED TO SHOW AN ADJOURN
MENT OF THE TAX SALE DOES
NOT AFFECT THE TITLE OF THE
PURCHASER.
This was a suit to set aside tax
deed to j. D. Thomas as invalid, be-
cause of the failure of the treasurer to
adjourn the sale of the land from a
term of court at which 1t was adver-
tised to the time at which it was ac-
tually sold. All the other proceedings
were regular as required by the stat
utes as to the sale of land delinquent
for non payment of taxes. The lower
court dismissed the bill and the plain
tiff appealed.
The Court says: u
Our statute provides, section Gel of
the Code, that where a purchaser has
obtained q deed for land purchased at
q tax sale, which has been duly adj
mitted to record, the title thus acquir-
ed can only be defeated by proof that
the taxes or leves for which the real
estate was sold were. not properly
chargeable thereon, or that the taxes or
levies properly chargeabie upon said
real estate have been paid. That this
statute. at the least, makes a prima
facie case In favor of Thomas cannot
be questioned
We have then case where the
averments of the b II are dan ed by the
answer and the testimony is conflicting
and inconclusive as to the issue Of fact
upon which the controversy depends.
and we have the decision Of the Cir
cult Court in favor of the appellee,
which must prevail, unless we are pre-
pared to pronounce the decree erron-
eouS.
But this is by no means the full
strength of the case for appellee. He
involSes the protection of section G61
OF the Code, which, to apply the Ian
guage Of the Supreme Court of the
United States in CalIanon " Hurley,
removed difficulties which had before
existed In the way Of establishing a tax
title and at the same time works no
Injustice to owners Of land subject to
taxation ="
Section 661 OF our Code, however.
goes further than the Iowa statute
which came under consideration in
Callahan V. Turley, for 1t undertakes
to make the deal conclusive upon all
questions involved, save only that it
may still be attacked by proof that the
taxes for which the real estate had
been sold were not properly chargcab.e
thereon, or that they had been paid.
That the case is covered by the de-
cisons of Flanagan v. Grimmett, and
Hobbs v. Shumate. is conceded but II
Is contended that the authority of those
cases Is destroyed by the Fourteenth
Amendment to the Constitution of the
United States, which provides among
other things, that no man shall be
deprived of his property without due
process of law"
We apprehcnd that such has ALWAYS
been the law of this State, and we cam
not think that Judge Allen, speaking
for this court In two we'll considered
cases, meant 10 decide otherwise. IT is
the duty of the State to cause the bur-
den of taxation to fall euuhlly unon
all citizens. and to enforce the COL
lection of taxes by such means as will
compel each to bear his allotted bur-
uen' anu ~ Lie performance Of this
duty the sale of property delinquent.
with an absolute right of redemption
for two years after such SALE is not
the taking Of the property of the cit
lien without due process of law. and
statute. which, after all this has been
done, and a deed to the purchaser has
been made. shuts off all inquiry with
the exceptions heretofore stated. Is a
just and proper exercise of legislative
power. Affirmed.
MURRAY v. SUTHERLAND.