The diamond drill. (Crystal Falls, Iron County, Mich.) 1887-1996, 1905-11-04
IMPORTANT TAX
TITLE CASE WON
BY ATTORNEY l. W. BYERS IN THE
SUPREME COURT.
SETTLES IMPORTANT POINTS
Circuit Court 0vsrruled Decided Oh
Points Of Personal Service Mainly
and SimpIIfies Method.

Attorney Isaac W. Byers won out in
the supreme court OF this state in an
important tax title case in which he
was ruled against In the circuit court
Of this county. The decision was
handed down during the week and is
one of the most important made in fix
ing the tax law that has been decided
in many a day.
The case is that Of Goddard and
others. owners of lot of lands in the
vicinity Of Saunders Fred Olson. Of
Saunders. bought a tax title on some
of this land and went through the
formality which the law asks for in
the case OF tax title purchases The
land owners were known 10 him and
he caused the service 10 be made per
sonally by the sheriff Of the county in
which the owners reside.
The land owners refused TO pay Mr..
Olson the penalty which the law allows
and sought relief in the circuit court.
attacking the service by the sheriff and
the return Of the sheriff, holding that
a lot Of formslities must be gone
through with and that unles, the
sheriff . return and service are strictly
according TO Hoyle the title il invalid.
Among other things set mp in their
claim were the following
/. Because il does not appear in the
returns Of the sheriffs serving such
notices. that they, or either OF them,
had Jurisdiction 10 make the service In
the counties where served. IL not ap-
pearing from such returns that the
persons were residents of the counties
in which the alleged service was made.
2. The service IL void. because a
copy Of the notice was served instead
OF the original
3. Because the notices were not
signed ly Mary r, Olson, or by any
one with her authority.
I. The notice is void, because the
amount Of the taxes for each year is
not given separately.
). IL does not appear in and by the
returns Of the said sheriffs that said
notices or either of them were served
upon the grantee under the last recoIl-
cd deed or deeds in the regular chain
of title to the land therein described,
or upon the mortgages or mortgages
described in an undischarged, recorded
mortgage upon said land, or upon an
assignee 81 an undischarged recorded
mortgage on said lands
G, Because it appears from said re-
turns that the alleged service was made
In each instance by deputy sheriff,
and not by the sheriff Of the county,
as the law requires
2 Because said notices are directed
In the first paragraph of each notice to
H. q Goddard and james rolbert, the
owners or owners OF the land herein
described, and the mortgagee or
mortgages named ia All undischargod
recorded mortgages against said land
or any assignee thereof Of record.
<. Because it does not appear that
return OF the sherifis were filed with
the county clerk Of the county in which
the lands are situated.
Judge Stone held that the showing
made by the lands owners was
sufficient 10 void the title and he 80
ruled Mr. Byers. vino represented
Mr., Olson. was not satisfied and sought
relief in the supreme court That body
reversed Judge stone and held the ser
vice good The decision does away
with lot II formailtie- that hereio.
fore has heretofore been held a. vital