The L'Anse sentinel. (L'Anse, L.S., Mich.) 18??-current, 1905-11-25
TAX TITLE CASE
ATTRACTS ATTENTION
Supreme Court Renders Decision In
One Of Judge stones Cases-
Legal Service Defined.

The Michigan supreme court, in
deciding q tax title case from Iron
county tried before Judge Stone last
spring. says the Marquette Mining
Journal, has established a precedent
in defining what constitutes illegal
service" in the matter of tax titles
that is far reaching in it's effect, and
will serve to rest the title to many
tax deeds in the state. The vital
point at issue in the case, and the
principal one on which the supreme
court based its opinion, although
there were fled eight specific ex-
hibits, was the question OF what
constitutes legal and sufficient notice
OF sale OF tax lands by sheriff or
deputy. Judge Stone, before whom
the case was tried in the Iron county
circuit court, held that the let
ter Of the statute must be complied
with; that notice must be served on
the grantee under the last recorded
deed or deeds in the regular chain Of
title to lands described in the notice
or upon the mortgagee named in any
undischarged recorded mortgage. or
upon any assignee OF said mortgage.
in the county in which they reside,
in case they are residents Of the
state.
While finding fault with the OFF,
GERS service, the supreme court ruled
that inasmuch as the officers re-
turn showed grantees to be residents
OF the state, and were served with
notice OF sale while within the state,
the notice is sufficient and in CON-
pliance with the statute, although
the law plainly provides that notice
must be served on the grantees in
the county in which they reside.
HISTORY OF THE CASE.
Fred Olsen, OF Saunders, Iron
county, bought from the state the
tax title to lands in that county. The
owuers OF the land were known to
him, and he caused the statutory
notice to be served upon them per-
sonally in the county of Ingham.
The defendants refused to pay the
penalty and attacked the proceed
ings had in the matter, setting up
in defense, among others, the follow
ing allegations:
Because it does not appear 10
the returns OF the sheriff, serving
such notices, that they or either OF
them, had jurisdiction to make the
service in the counties where served,
it not appearing from such returns
that the persons were residents of
the counties in which the alleged
service was made.
"lt does not appear in and by the
returns OF the said sheriffs, that
said notices, or either OF them, we're
served upon the grantee under the
last recorded deed .or deeds in the
regular chain OF the title Of the land
therein described, or upon the
mortgages described in an
undischarged, recorded mortgage
upon said lands, or upon an assignee
of an undischarged, recorded mort
gage on said lands.
Because it appear from said re-
turns that the alleged service was
made in each instance by a deputy
sheriff, and not by the sheriff OF the
county, as the law requires.
INTERPRETATION TOO STRICT.
The supreme court in substance
held that the circuit court held too
closely to the strict Interpretation
Of the statute, and in remanding the
case, said.
"The language used in the statute
must be, II possible, so construed
that the legislative purpose shall be
accomplished and effectuated. A
person who buys delinquent tax land
Of the auditor general is not INVESTED
with all the rights OF q land
owner, nor are adverse titles and
Interests in the land extinguished
until the owners OF such titles and
interest are afforded by the act oI
the tax title holder, opportunity Il
pay the taxes and penalty, and
obtain e-conveyance. The essen
tial idea Of legislation is opportuni.
tcOntinued ON page sighu