The comet. (Johnson City, Tenn.) 1884-1916, 1900-06-14

property solu by tue trustee lor Dack
taxes and bought in by outside parties
reverts to the original owners. The
decision of the court does not touch on
the constitutionality of the law and tits
presumed that if the requirements of
the act are complied with, which was
not done at Memphis, the law would
hold.
WHAT THE COURT SAYS.
In the course of the opinion written
by Justice Beard, the supreme court
says, in substances:
After discussing Chapter /, Acts of
1897, with regard to the sale by the
county trustee of property delinquent
for taxes, the court said that Section
SO of the act required two acts as pre-
requisites to the vestiture of title in the
treasurer of the state, one OF which
was not more essential than the other.
First, the county trustee must strike
off the property of the treasurer; sec
ond, he was bound to file with the clerk
of the circuit court list of such prop
erty and the taxes for which it was
sold.
The mere sale was only the prelimin-
ary step. OF itself it was no transmu-
tation of title. To take title out of the
owner and vest it in the treasurer the
certified list was necessary. BY the
statute this stands in the place of a
deed That the legislature intended to
make this list prerequisite is made
still further apparent by reference to
Section 65, which requires the trustee
to make out and file list similar in
every respect to that required in Sec
ton SO, of the delinquent land he sells
to individuals. But with respect to
this it is provided that the failure to
make return to this list or the filing of
defective list shall not affect the title.
Such provision is made with regard to
the other list. And it is not a strained
inference that in making this distinc-
tion between the two cases the legisla-
ture intended to emphasize the rule
that the doctrine Of caveat emptor ap-
piled in the one and did not in the 9th.
er. 1t has been seen by Section 20, af-
ter the time for the redemption of any
tract OF land struck off to the treasurer
of the state has expired, any person
making proper payment to the clerk il
entitled to receive conveyance, O.
what? OF the title vested in the treas
urer. But there is no title vested il
him lacking the certified list, and thu
clerk can only convey where such it'll
is vested. In the want of prope
vestiture his conveyance is waste pa
: per. 1t is no more and effects no better
result than if made by any other un
I authorized official. Hatcher VS.. Powell
6 Wharton, 118.
FAMOUS SECTION II.
! But it is said that Section II provide
I that this conveyance from the clerl
I; shall be an assurance of perfect title t.
I the purchaser of such land and no sucl
( conveyance shall be invalidated in an.
! court except by proof that the LAM
7 was not liable to sale for taxes or tina
\ the taxes for which land was sold ha
4 been paid before said sale. 1t is tn
! legislative condemnation of the failur
4 of the county trustee to file the cert
! fed list. In fact, the argument is mad
that il conclusively shuts the door {
= investigation in the face of the origins
owner save in the two particulars mer
toned.
1t could hardly be insisted that sue
conveyance could work an estopp'
H. so as to prevent the owner from show
ing that his land, though delinquer
and embraced in the certified list {
V having been struck off to the treasurel
was in fact never offered and struck O
ay by the county trustee. No more coul
it be maintained than in case whel
land was properly struck off to the sta
~ for delinquent taxes which subsequen
ly to the sale was embraced in the ce
tilted list required of him by section 6
- and in ignorance of the fact of paymeI
:. at the expiration of two yeas was co
IS veyed under the authority of sectiC
10, that such conveyance would clio
:. the mouth of the owner. Yet, If Il
contention of these tax purchasers
). sound, the conveyance of the Gle
would debar the owner from shown
these facts.
Sd AfIcnAVpN cnNrT UcION