The Banner-Democrat. [volume] (Lake Providence, East Carroll Parish, La.) 1892-current, 1902-01-18
TAX SALE DECISION.

Friday one of the most importan
decisions rendered by, the Supreme
Court for years. which we publish
below in full. This decision sets a
rest the question of tax titles, anc
here in East Carroll the decision II
of great moment, for the reason
THAT thousands of acres of land II
the country is held by tax-title only,
which has caused investors to Dt
backward in buying land and also
law suit. But now that this ques
ton has been decided by the high
est court, which decision covers all
the points as to the lands in East
| Carroll purchased at tax sale, the
land will now become more valuable
hand there will he found ready and
anxious purchasers for it.
The opinion is as follows;
]. 4. Canter VS., the Heirs OF Peter
Williams-Appeal from the Fifteenth
Judicial District, parish Of Calcasieu
Williams. adj hoe.
Peter Williams acquired under the
"homestead" act Of Congress the south
east quarter of section l8, township IL
sonth. range IL west, situated in the
| oar;Sh ~ Calca sion
Patent therefor issued to him on
Sept. IS, 1880.
| He failed to pay taxes assessed there
on FOR the year 1882, and the property
was sold in satisfaction thereof in May
1883, aud bought by S A. Fairchild. to
whom the tax collector made forma
title. which was placed of record in
Calcssieu parish on June IA. 1888.
/ Leon and Ii. Blum recovered &
Judgment against Fairchild and in ex
ecution thereof the sheriff seized The
Hand in question AS the property Of
! Fairchild; and after the proceeding g
had adiudicated the same in Deem
her. 1898, to the Leon and Ii. Blum
fLand Company.
Subsequently. to-wit in Septem
/ Der. 1886, the Leon and II. Blum LAM
Company conveyed the land, with 9th
er lands, To w. l.. Fairchiid. and thu
latter, in March. 1898. conveyed tn
4 same TO NJ. Marx and Aaron Blum.
Marx and Blum in turn conveyed
the land. in April, 1901, to the plaintiff
herein. J. Il Canter.
| These several acts of sale appear tt
have been duly and seasonably reg
stered in the conveyance records o
the parish of Calcasieu, and, it would
seem, the possession of the land &C
companied the acts of transfer.
In June following his acquisition %
i the title, Cauter brought the presen
he holds, traces back.
1t is brought under the authority o
the second paragraph of Art, 233 o
i the Constitution of 1898 and Sec. ) o
Act 19l of the Acts of 189S-which &C
was designated to carry into effect tn
article of the Constitution.
Defendants are the sole heirs of Pete
Williams. who had acquired the lanC
under the homestead law. Peter VIII
liams, 1t seems. left the parish of Cal
CASTE. removed to the City of New Or
| leans. became a resident there. dee
there. his succession was opened Their
and his heirs were recognized and sen
into possession OF his estate. by judg
ment of .he District Court there. rend
ered in 1897.
| This judgment sending into posses
sion. specifies the property constitu
/. ting The estate. with reference to whicl
it (the jndgmenD was to be operated
and the land in question in this suit il
not mentioned or referred to.
From 1888 to the time of the institu
ton of. The snit. therefore. it woult
i seem that neither Peter Williams no
nor paid taxes thereon.
| Art, 223 of the Constitution declar g
that no sale Of property for taxes. mad
fprior to the adoption of that instru
ment. shall be set aside for any cause
except on proof of duel assessment, Of
sof payment of taxes for which tn
property was sold prior to the date o
saIe, unless the proceedings to anuul i
instituted within three years from tn,
adoption OF the Constitution.
/ Among the defences set up is no
found that of dual assessment of tn
property. nor that of payment Of taxes
for which the property was sold, prio
to the date of sale.
AS to other causes or grounds exist
ent for setting aside the tax title, we d.
not find that any proceeding to annu
was instituted within three years of th
adoption of the Constitution.
Viewing the various defenses set NJ
herein. in bar of plaintiffs demand TO
the confirmation of The tax title unde
which he claims, as a proceeding t
annul,n they cannot be entertained. fo
they are asserted too late This sui
was filed more than three years afta
the adoption of the Constitution. A
against them, the presumption or pre-
; scription of the Constitution is in
voked.
That provision Of the Constitution
was intended to have the effect of
J statute of repose. After the lapse of th
three years from the adoption of tn
tConsttution the party in possession
under his tax title. duly recorded. can
not be disturbed except for the tw
; causes mentioned in Art. 233-that @
dual assessment and that Of anteceden
payment of taxes. Certainly, the claim
ant owner out of possession, as here
cannot De heard to urge other cause
for setting aside the adverse tax title o
preventing its confirmation.
Judgment affirmed.
AProminent Chicago Woman Speaks
Prof. Roxs Tyler, of Chicago, Vice