Bismarck daily tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1881-1916, 1902-11-25
TAX DEED CASE.
SUPREME COURT AFFIRMS LOWER
COURT IN TAX DEED CASE.

COURT IN TAX DEED CASE.
An important decision has been filed
in the supreme court in the case of G.
e. Fisher VS.. N. N. Belts and Q. p.
Smith, the questions involved being
the legality of tax deeds, issued under
the laws of the state. The matter is
summarized and the decision of the
court indicated in the following syl-
-'.
In 1890 a revenue law was passed
by the legislature, providing for a
sale. for non-payment of taxes, and
providSng nor issuing certificates Of
and defining their effect; and fur
Their providing that the purchaser
would be entitled to a deed. in a pre-
scrlbed time. This law failed to
enact who should issue such deed er
what its reoitals or effect should be.
In 1881, the legislature provided for
the issuing of deeds under sales made
the 1890 law and defined the re-
citals and effect of the deed. Held,
that the two laws should be construed
together, the same as though passed
at the same time.
Held, further. that by a sale under
the 1890 law for a tax levied in 1889,
a contract was entered into between
the state and the purchaser, the terms
of which are the law in force When
the sale was made.
Held, further, that no subsequent
legislation could lawfully repeal the
law in force when the sale was made
as to change the effect of the deed
in matters of substance, as that would
be impairing the validity of a contract.
Under the 1891 law, the auditor was
to issue deeds under tax sales. In
1895, that provision of law was repealed
and it was enacted that deeds should
be issued by treasurers. Z The repeal
ing law was general in its terms and
made no reference to past sales. Held,
for reasons given in the opinion, that
the law was prospective only and did
not repeal the prior provisions that
auditors should issue deeds, and that
a deed issued by an auditor ON past
sales, after the 1895 law was in force,
was not void ON its face.
Three yeaus had elapsed since the
passage of the statute of limitations
applying to tax deeds, before this ac-
ton was commenced. Held, that such
precludes any defense to such
deed after that time elapses, except
such defects as go to the groundwork
of the tax, or other iurisdictional de-
fects.
Held, that the fact that no warrant
to the treasurer to collect the taxes is
found attached to the tax list in 1891,
is not evidence that the warrant Yves
not so attached when the sales were
made.
Held. that the fact that the record
of the county commissioners does not
show that the board of commissioners
as a board of equalization, does
not defeat the tax after the statute had
run, when lit is shown that the board
met as a board of equalization and
kept their minutes in a separate min
ute book.
Held, that the fact that a board of
county commissioners failed to desig-
nate a newspaper in a technically
proper manner. i'm which to publish a
delinquent tax list, is not fatal to a
tax deed, after the statute has run in
favor of the deed.
Held, that the fact THAT a board OF
equalization levied taxes by percent
ages when THE law prescribed a levy
by specific amounts. is not fatal to a
tax deed, after the limitation OF the
statute has passed before the action
was commenced.
Held, THAT the fact that the tax deed
was not supported by evidence directly
showing that a notice of the time when
redemption from the tax sale would
expire had been served before the deed
was issued, lis not ground'for attacking
a tax deed, after the statute has run
as the officer is presumed to have per.
formed his duty.
Syllabus by the court.
Appeal from Cass county. J. E
Robinson for appellant. Morrill, &
Engerud for respondent.
Affirmed.