Bismarck daily tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1881-1916, 1903-07-09
TAX QUESTIONS ARE DECIDED
Supreme Court Hands Down Another De-
cision OF Disputed Points in the Tax
Cases.

Another case involving taxation
questions has been decided by the
supreme court, as follows:
c. E. Fisher, appellant. VS.. ~ n.
Belts and o. p. Smith, respondents.
/. In 1890 a revenue law was
passed by the legislature providing
for the sale of land for the non-pay-
ment of taxes, and providing for
issuing certificates of sale and the
effect of such certificates as evidence.
1t further provides that the purchaser
would be entitled to 4 deed in a pre-
scriDed time. There was failure to
designate the officers who should issue
such deed or what the recitals or effect
of the deed should be. In 1891 the
legislature provided for the issuance
of deeds under sales made under the
1890 law and prescribed what the
recitals of the deed should be- and
defined the effect of such recitals and
provided that the deeds should be
prima face evidence of the regularity
of prior proceedings Held. that the
two laws should be construed togeth
err. the same as though passed at the
same time.
2. A sale made under the 1890
law for tax levied in 1889 constitut-
ed a contract between the state and
the purchaser, the terms of which sre
embraced III the law IN force when
the sale was made.
8. No subsequent legislation could
repeal the law in force when the sale
was made so as to change the effect
of the deed as evidence in matters
of substance, as that would be impair
ing the validity of contract.
4. Under the 1891 law the county
auditor was the officer to issue deeds
under tax sales made hereunder In
1895 that provision of law was repeal
ed and it was therein enacted that
deeds should be issued by county
treasurers. The 1895 law was gen
eral in its terms and made no refer
ence to past sales. Held. for reasons
given in the opinion. that the law
was prospective only and did not re
peal the prior provisions of the law
that auditors should issue deeds, and
that a deed issued by an auditor or
past sales after the 1895 law was in
force was not void on its face.
5. The fact that the state board OF
equalization in 1891 and 1892 levied
taxes by percentages when the law
required levy in specific amounts
does not render such taxes levied in
valid and is not fatal to a tax deed
issued on sale for delinquent taxes
based on such levy.
g. The fact that a tax deed wa:
not supported by evidence showins
that notice of the time when the re
demption period would expire hat
been published before the deed was is
sued is not ground for attacking ia!
deed as the auditor is presumed tt
have performed that duty, and the re
citals Of the deed are prima faci
evidence that such notice was publish
ed
Z, Under statute making ta
deed when issued primafacie evidenc
of the regularity of all prior tax pre-
ceedings. the deed is prlma facie ev
dence that notice of the expiration G
the time for redemption was publishe
S. A witness not connected VIII
county Office and not in charge
the records thereof as public on
cial. clerk or employee, is not con
petent witness to testify to the al
sence from such office of certain pf
pers. nor is he a competent wines
to testify as to the absence from IN
records of such office of certain ma
erial entries.
3 The best evidence IN such case
is that of an official in charge Oh II
files and records.
10. Ordinarily, the recorus "n
files pertaining to the ma''er uiio'
Investigation should be produced
court by the official in charge OF 'he,
II. A certificate Of an oftlcer 10 u
correctness of copies is not eviaen'
of any other fact recited therein.
70. An officer certifying that d &C
tain motion or other matters IS
that the records of his office sho
that pertains" to leVy' 10 NV
dence that the records DO not s''o
other matters pertaining to the lev
1s. In this state the statute pl
vides that public officials are presu'
ed to have regularly performed 'ne
a,t,as until the contrary Is SHOW