The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1900-12-11
RIGHTS UNDER TAX Sales
Attorney DuvaIrs Review of the
Famous kcyscr Case.
A Claim of sS2.03:s.6l Against the Dis
trtct Dating Back to JS55-Prop-
crty Conveyed Mnny Times for
Overdue ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ON
"a bill Now Pending I'm Congress.

Andrew b. Duyall, the Attorney of tn
| District, yesterday submitted to the Com
| missioners with his approval. House Res
| olution 1919, for the relief of Esther
| Ike. SER which was submitted to him TO
an opinion. The object Of the bill. as
stated by the Attorney, sis to direct tn,
| Commissioners OF the District of Column.
| bia 80 pay Esther A. Keyser the sum o
! Se,03S.6i in full for purchase money paid
by her, or those under whom she claims
| for lot 3, square S73. in Washington. D. c.
as well as for all taxes, assessments, and
| penalties paid for or on account of said 10
! by her or those under whom she claims
whether paid before or after said sale
| said lot having been sold by the corp ra-
! ton OF Washington at tax sale, and said
corporation and its successors ha wing
failed TO comply with the law regula ing
the sale Of real estate in said District for
taxes, whereby title thereto was lost to
the purchaser"
With the remark that the history of the
tax sales of the lot presents curious
study. the Attorney reviews it in full
From the outline given it appears that
the Corporation of Washington, on April
IL. 1855, sold the lot to Buckner Bayiiss
for the tax of 1854, assessed in the name
of Mary Prout, and on June 16 1857 con-
veycd the property to him by deed duly
recorded. Bayliss failed to pay the tax
for the year 1863, and on May s, 1860. the
corporation of Washington sold the lot to
William Todd by deed. dated July rs. 1862
Thereafter. August 6, 1868, the lot was
sold again for the tax of 1867, which Todd
failed to pay. the purchaser being Sam
uel Cross. The latter conveyed the lot by
quit claim deed to William R. Todd, June
q, 1871. Cross having failed to pay the
tax for 1868, the District of Columbia,
successor to the late corporation of
Washington. sold the property to Cross
June q, 1869. w:.o assigned his purchase
to ]. R. Ashby. the property being con-
veyed TO him by deed dated October 8.
1871.
J. r. Ashby conveyed the lot to William
b. Todd by deed November Z, 1871. IN the
division of the estate of William B. Todd
among his heirs at law. the lot was con-
iveyed TO Esther A. Keyser November 81,
1874 On July is, 1879. an action in eject
ment was brought against Esther A. Key
ser by William Mills, trustee for the
heirs of John Lee.
Long litigation then ensued which the
Attorney reviews. showing that a counter
claim to the property was established by
deeds and conveyances from Henry Brad
ley and his wife, formerly Mary Prout
A verdict was rendered for the plaintiff
in this case under the direction of the
court. The judgment was appealed and
confirmed and the defendant was cvicted.
Dating from October z, 1881, petitions
have been addressed TO the Commission
ers Of the District at intervals to pay her
the sum named above, and the case has
passed through several adverse decisions,
which the Attorney also reviews. Mrs.
Keyser then had recourse to bill in
Congress granting her the relief asked,
and this bill is the matter under discus
sion by the Attorney.
Finally, he asks: What is the situation
Of the case? The municipality caused
tax deed to be executed and delivered.
The grantee accepted that deed and
caused II to be recorded. 1t is manifestly
beyond the power and authority of any
mere executive officer OF the municipality
to declare a deed to be null and void
This requires the Intervention of .ourt
of competent jurisdiction, authorized by
law to adjudicate, and by its judgment to
decree, to determine and declare a deed
delivered and recorded to be void. Can
1t be possible that in case between
strangers. to which the municipality is
not a party, its deed without its beirg
heard to maintain ii can be declared
void?
THE claimant, as ! understand, bases
the present application for relief upon tine
section OF the Revised Statutes
of the United States relating to the Dis
trict of Columbia:
"'Secfion 1853. In all cases Of sales of
real property for taxes due In the city of
Washington, where such sales shall not
have been made according to law, and
void, it shall be lawful for the authori-
ties, on the application OF the purchaser
or other person entitled under him, %
refund and pay to such person the amount
paid by him on account Of such purpose, /
and also the subsequent taxes accrued and
paid on the said property
"In my opinion section 15S contemplates |
a direct proceeding against the District of |
in order to determine whether its |
tax deed is void"
After discussing the legal aspect Of this |
latter question, Mr.. Duvall continues: |
There is no agreement, express or i'm |
Piled. in a sale Of property for taxes that |
the municipality will give possession OF |
property to the purchaser. 1t has nothing |
10 do with that. In this case the pur- |
chaser actually gained possession. The |
property was vacant. and the fact that pos
session was not taken under the first deed |
n 1857 was due TO the laches OF the
grantee under that deed. If he had then
aiken possession and maintained it con-
inuously. Mrs. Keyser could have defeated
he ejectment suit by Mills. the trustee,
or actual possession under claim Of title
or twenty years or more constitutes an |
title.
1T is an unheard OF proposition that
corporation. when It gives a
AK deed. guarantees that possession will |
De obtained ard retained by its grantee,
and that ii undertakes not only to
indemnify ana save harmless the pur-
,haser al its tax sales. from any loss of
his purchase money, but also to give him
interest thereon. indefinitely and until
uch time as the grantee in some action
,icipality. for any reason may lose such
possession.
ut is, Of course. immaterial what relief
,r remedy some States may have FRO
'ided by statute for such case as the
claimant supposes she has, or what the
ourts of such States have said concern
ng such statutes-the fact remains we
lad and have no such statute in force in
he District.
In my Judgment the present claim
ou'd not be sustained in any court OF
he District, and ! am unable to see any
,ood reason in law or equity for the
TO approve this bill
Visiting Detectives Arrive.