The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1899-02-24
IMPORTANT LAND
SUIT ENTERED.
Il involves a Big Question of State
Taxes.
MAY SERVE AS A TEST CASE.
A Controversy rs to whether the State
Has a Right 90 Sell Certain Real
Estate for Delinquent Taxes
and Lcyics.
MAY SERVE AS A TEST CASE.

A suit was instituted in the Circuit
Court Of the United States for the Last
ern District Of Virginia yesterday which
Will likely create considerable interest
among the lawyers as well as among
real estate owners whose taxes are de-
lnquent. The Suit was instituted by the
Norfolk Mari and Phosphate Company
vs.. Thomas Boone. Henley, G.. j. Ill.,
trustee in a deed OF trust from Thomas
Boone Henley, bearing date of March l9'
1898. and Thomas b. Henley defendants.
The bill complains that on January ],
1893. certain lands lying in the West
Point Magistcrial District OF King VIII
liam county and valued at S,oiJ.V, were
acquired by the company which j. Duo pose
session of deeds conveying the property
10 the compliments and that on De-
cembcr g. 1890. B. g. Garrett clerk of
the County Court Of kink William under
took 90 convey the tracts 20 tho defend
ant ty deed which purp0rts 20 have been
mace Pos Garrett for payment o. him or
Nfi.if thc amount for which tne property
hau been previously sold 10 the state f"r
taxes and levies. with interes. from
an alleged sale of said real c'1ic
claimed 10 have been mad in
tho state for nOn-payment Of taxes Tor
1893. and that under section 700 oi mo
Code the property wsl purchased from
tho Commonwealth Of Virginia Dy the o'-
Iondaut, Thomas Boone Henley
CLAIMED no BE ILLEGAL.
The bin prays that the so-calltd trans
fer should Dee set aside as being contrary
to the constitution Of the United States
which prohibits any state from deplFing
any person Of life. liberty or property
without duo process OF law.
The bill further claims that tho prop
erty was not legclly listed for taxation
IN that the requirement or sec.iph 4's
Of the Code was not complied with ty
he Commissioner of Revenue, tnat no
notice was give The complainant OF the
time and place where The property was
90 Doe sold; that no proper sale occurred
which had the effect of Transforming the
TIC ot the property 20 the Auditor vi
Pubic Accounts. That 300 sworn report OF
the safe was made 10 the court. that the
provisions made in section ~ for notice
of au application t0 purchase real estate
under said section is wholly irtdeQuIte
to meet the requirement of the Fcdc-
raj constitution as 20 "duc process
MAY 1915 a TEST.
II SIS further set forth that the deed un-
der which the defendant claims title t0
the property is not legal. and the clerk
OF the said court was without authority
60 make such and the Din prays chat the
alleged sale -o the Commonwealth OF Nir-
eiuia 0f th- compiainants. property may
Doe declared Illegal and void and that tho
deeds may be declared void and without
effect.
The complainant is represented by
Henry r. and John Garland Pollard
u is believed That this suit viii Doe made
a test case in many controversies inVOl-
wing the right OF the State To- sell certain
real estate for the recovery OF delinquent
taxes and lcvics under the present statute
bearing on the subject and for This rea-
SON the case will Doe watched with more
fhnn nrllnnrN Inlnreel