The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1901-03-28
AFFAIRS OF THE DISTRICT
The Assessor Advises Against Can
collation. of a Tax Sale.
The Validity Of Transaction Not
Affected by Issue of Subsequent
Certiacate-A Recommendation for
m Rcicnsc From Tax Penalties.

Charles H. Weaver. of Weaver Bros.
l416 + Street northwest, has requested
the cancellation of the tax sale OF Apfh
IA, 1899. against lots i'll, 142. and i4S
square IA. the same having been omitted
from tax certificate No. 4Sl6S.
The Commissioners referred the appli-
cation to the office of the Assessor ana
Z. w. w. Griffin, the Assistant Assessor
has reported that. The above reciteo
property was sold at tax sale April Ia,
1899 for the taxes of 1898. to Thomas ".
Smith in the amount of 20.6l A ceru-
ficate issued July ], 1899. did not report
this sale The examiners. Wincheh ana
Lesh, noted said sale on the official sap
but it was omitted from the certilcate
by the typewriter performing the service
at that time.
THE deed of conveyance was MADE 10
Charles II. Weaver from John /. Weaver
and David T. Weaver, trustees, and re-
corded November s. 1899. and was the
result OF a foreclosure of a mortgage, the
property being bought in by the petition
er for his own protection.
The petitioner presents affidavits that
he became the purchaser of this proper
~ on the faith of the certificate of July
l. 1899. and that he had no notice of the
tax omitted therefrom and is, therefore,
entitled TO relief by the cancellation of
the tax sale
The tax on this property for 1898 was
duly advertised in the delinquent tax INST
in the spring of 1893, previous to the sale
of April a. 1899, and as the sale to Thom-
as W. Smith paid the said 1898 tax, the
District had no further lien against the
property for that year
THE practice of enumerating the data
of tax sales upon the certificates was I'M
der regulation issued by the CommiS-
sioners under dates respectively OF July
"a and Aug list q. 1891.
Under the law regulating taxes and
tax sales enacted by Congress May Is,
1892, the Office is only held responsible as
to the omission of a tax from the certlfl-
cate. and there being no tax in this in
stance its responsibility ceases. fhe
placing of the data as to tax sales on
the face of the certificates was only py
the courtesy of the Commissioners unuer
the regulation above referred to, and not
in response to any law upon the subject
and any data relating to such sales tnat
are unavoidably left OF certiIlcaIe a3 ,es
not under the law. render the District
amenable nor delinquent in any reports
upon these certificates.
This office is clearly of the opinion
that this case does not come within the
provisions of the act of May IL, lSI, en-
titled An act in relation to taxes ana
tax sales in the District of COLUMBIA
and is, therefore. submitted with an an-
verse recommendation.
E. G. Davis, the Collector of Taxes, in
Passing upon the application, states that
the advertisement and sale in the case
appear to have been regular ana IN com
pliance with the law. He is of the opin-
ion that a tax certificate issued July /,
1899. by the Assessor emitting any refer
ence to this sale surely would not oper-
ate to invalidate the sale of the property
for taxes which occurred more than two
months before. The Collector concurs- in
the report of the Assistant Assessor.
A. A. Hoehling, jr., attorney for Charles
c. Halpine has sent communication to
the Commissioners asking for his clients
relief from the interest charge of 10 per
cent and other penalties in the tax sales
of 1893 and 1890. against sublot 90 square
l4O, In his letter Mr. Hoehling alleges
that at the time of the sales the property
was assessed to George Barrie when rec
ords of the Recorder of Deeds show that
it was owned by his client.
E. w w Griffin, the Assistant Asses
scr. in reporting upon the matter at the
request of the Commissioners, says: "A
search of the records develops the fact
that the contention of Mr. Hoehling is
correct in this respect the property be-
ing conveyed TO said Halpine by deed re-
corded October I, 1882, but not trans
ferrcd on the records. occasioned by the
clerk in charge of such matters overlook
ing the deed on the transfer book. Said
clerk is not now an employe of this office:
The claim that the advertisement and
sale was made IL; the wrong name does
not invalidate the sale of the property.
The question is what does the District
sell most assuredly not the name, but the
property, and in this case what property?
The east II feet front Of sublot 40, square
40. Whether the Office is called on for
bills or a certificate of taxes ii Is posi-
lively imperative that the lot and square
Il 81.
does not figure only as to ownership, and
in advertising this property as the east
Il feet front of lot 20, "a description suf-
ficient to identify it, the act of Febru-
airy y. 1893. relating to taxes and tax
sales in the District OF Columbia was
fully carried out and complied with.
Special attention is directed 10 the
fact that tax for the year 1894. while as
sessed in sne nsrnc of George Barrie, was
paid by check of Charles c. Halpine; in
addition thu taXns on this property are
unpaid for 1Si5. 1895. and 1897. In the name
of George Barrie.
The facts herein stated do mt warrant
the action requested by the applicant. and
the case must rereiye an adverse recon-
mendation."
E. G. Davis the Collector Of Taxes, yes
terday returned the application to the
Commissioners with his approval of the
above report.
The Commissioners yesterday replied to
the request of John Burke. through his
attorney, c. c. James. to be relieved from
Waterman assessment against part of
lot 2. square 439. They inform him that
the assessment In question. under date of
October l. 1895, was for the full front of
lot for the main laid in | Street, be-
tween Seventh and Eighth Streets south
west. The Commissioners inform him
further that the assessment against lot l
for main laid in Seventh Street. between
II and ! Streets, was a distinct and sep
arate assessment against said lot, and
for main on the ! Street front against
said lot 2
In view Of the circumstances the Com
must decline to grant the request for the
to.
The Rev. A. II. Ames, of 1I40 North
Capitol Street. was informed yesterday
by the Commissioners that they cannot
properly comply with his request for the
cancellation of tax for 1900 against part
OF lot q. square go, occupied by the Home
Missionary Society of the NJ f. Church.
The Commissioners inform him that the
tax In question was levied July ], 1893
at which time the property was in the
name of Margaret Fohmeyer a-d was not
conveyed to the Missionary Society until
several months later when The building
for hospital purposes was ereo:@d.