The evening times. [volume] (Grand Forks, N.D.) 1906-1914, 1906-05-21
Supreme Court Decisions
In the Supreme Court, State OF
North Dakota, March, 1905. Term.
A. l.. Beggs. Respondent. VS.. ]. A.
Paine Annellant

In the Supreme Court, State of
North Dakota, March, 1905, Term.
A. l.. Beggs. Respondent. vs.. j. A..
Paine, Appellant.
l. A tax deed issued pursuant to
tax sale under Chapter 1872, Laws of
1890, Is void If 1t fails to state any one
or more of the facts which deed in
the form prescribed by Section z,
Chapter 100. Laws Of 1891, should
show.
2. A tax deed which does not
substantially comply with the form
prescribed by law for such deed is
not prima facie evidence of valid
tax sale, and does not set in motion
those statutes of limitation which bar
actions to set aside tax sales without
adverse possession.
3. A purchaser at valid tax sale
pursuant to Chapter 1872. Laws of 1890,
acquired actual ownership of the land
sold as soon as the right OF redemption
had been terminated. even though
deed In proper form had not been
delivered to him. (Young. ]. dissenting.)
4. Where the record on appeal I'M
der Section $500. Revised Codes, shows
that tax deed was by both parties
and the trial court assumed to be
sufficient in form and accordingly
prima facie evidence of title, and at
tention is not called to the formal in
sufficiency of the deed until the
augmentation appeal, this court will
grant new trial to afford the party
claiming under the deed an opportun-
ity to establish his right by other
evidence. young, J. dissenting)
5. Where certificate holder has
nrnnQr time nhtoinn1 fov
which is good ON its face according to
common law rules. but does not con-
form to the statutory form and Is
therefore void on its face. the certifi-
cate is not barred by Chapter 165. Laws
of 1901.
6. The abbrevatior IN. W." in the
column headed Part of Section. was
sufficient to identify the land as the
northwest quarter of the section named
in the assessment roll. Power VS..
Bowdle, N. D. 107. and Power VS..
Larabee, . N. D. 141, distinguished.
Z. tax sale made in 1896 under the
revenue law contained in the Revised
Codes of 1895, was void if based on an
assessment roll which was not veri-
fled by the required assessors af-
fidavit; but that defect did not in
validate the taxes for which the sale
was made so as to warrant can
collation. of such taxes in the absence
of any claim that same were unjust.
s. The assessment roll was pro-
duced and there was no assessors
affidavit attached to it and there was
no indication that any had ever been
attached. The auditor testified that
there was nothing to indicate that
such affidavit had ever been in his
office. Held, sufficient prima facie
proof that the assessor had neglected
to attach his affidavit to the assessment
roll.
8. The right of tax sale pur-
chaser at sale in 1896 to lien for
taxes paid. guaranteed to him by Sec
ton 1878. Revised Codes of 1895, was
right which could not be impaired by
subsequent legislation. (Young, j.
dissenting)
10. A percentage levy of road taxes
by township authorities. based on the
assessment roll of the previous year,
was valid levy.
II. A certificate OF sale issued on
a tax sale in 1897. which shows that
one acre was sold out of a quarter
section. but does not identify the
| particular acre referred to. is void.
IL. A tax sale certificate for sale
under the present revenue law need
not be executed under seal. The omis-
sion of a seal is net a substantial
departure from the statutory form,
because the county auditor has no
officialm seal.
10. Section 1868, Revised Codes of
1899, construed and held, under the
provisions of this section, the failure
of person affected by the tax sale to
seek relief from irregular tax pro-
ceedings before the tax sale operates
as complete bar to any relief unless
the defect complained of is one or more
of the objections specified in the Sec
ton, or is some jurisdictional defect
which it is beyond the power of the
legislature to remedy by curative act
or bar by limitation statute not re-
quiring adverse possession. young, J.
dissenting.)
IA. In the notice of delinquent tax
sale, which was otherwise sufficient.
the words amount of sale," appeared
over the column in which were stated
the sums for which each tract was
to be sold. The notice clearly showed
what was intended and the words were
not misleading. Held. The notice was
good.
(Syllabus by the court.)
Appeal from the district court of
Dickey county; w. s. Lauder, Judge.
Newman. Spalding & Stambaugh for
appellant.
c. w. Davis and w. F. Mason for
respondent
Opinion of the court by Engernd, ].
The case will be remanded for a new
trial on the issue presented by the
first and third defenses involving the
sales of 1890 and 1896, respectively.
In the event that the defendant shall
establish that he is entitled to deed
under the sale of 1890 for the taxes
of 1S89,judgment will be entered
awarding him the title and possession
of the property If the defendant shall
not be able to establish title under
said sale of 1890, then the trial court
will render judgment awarding the
title to the plaintiff, subject to the
rights of the defendant under the GER
tificates on the sales of 1900 and 1901,
respectively, and his lien for taxes
paid by reason of the sale of 1885, In
the event of judgment for plaintiff
on the question of title, such judgment
should show the reasons why the tax
sales or taxes. as the case may be,
are void, in compliance with Section
1870. Revised Codes of 1899. The judg-
ment is reversed and cause remanded
for further proceedings in accordance
with this opinion. The appellant will
recover the taxable costs and dis
bursements of this appeal.
Doughty W.. Sec Railway Co.
The act of congress, approved
March 3, 1875, granting right of way
over the nuhlic lands for the construc.