The Fargo forum and daily republican., 1906-05-17

In the supreme court, state of
North Dakota, March, 1906 term A.
L. Beggs, respondent, VS.. j. A. Paine,
appellant.
1. A tax deed issued pursuant to
tax sale under chapter 1872, laws of
1890, is void If it fails to state any
one or more of the facts which a deed
in the form prescribed by section Z,
chapter 100, laws Of 1891, should
show.
2. A tax deed which does not sub
stantially comply with the form pre-
scribed 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 ac-
tions 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 assthe right of redemp-
ton had been terminated, even though
a deed in proper form had not been
delivered to him. (Young, j., dissent
ing).
A. Where the record on appeal ln-
der section $500, Revised Codes, shows
| that a tax deed was by both parties
and the trial court assumed to be suf-
| ficient in form and accordingly prima
facie evidence of title, and attention
| is not called to the formal insufficient
cy of the deed until the argument on
appeal, this court will grant new
| trial to afford the party claiming un-
| hn TO taIN
| lish his right by other evidence.
| (Young, j., dissenting)
| 5. Where a certificate holder has
| in proper time obtained tax deed
which is good on it's face according
| to common law rules, but does not
| conform to the statutory form and
is therefore void on it's face. the GER
tifieate is not barred by chapter 1866,
laws of 1901
g. The abbreviation, 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, 3 N. D., 107, and Power
VS.. Larabee, 2 N. d., 141, distinguish
ed.
z. A tax sale made in 1896 under
the revenue law contained in the Re-
vised Codes of 1895, was void if based
on an assessment roll which was not
verified by the required assessors af-
| fidavit; but that defect did not in
validate the taxes for which the sale
was made 50 as to warrant can
collation. of such taxes in the absence
of any claim that same were unjust
i s. The assessment roll was pro-
duced and there was no assessors af-
ffdavit attached to it and there was
no indication that any had ever beer
attached. The auditor testified thai
/ there was nothing to indicate thai
such affidavit had ever been in his
Office Held. sufficient prima faciC
proof that the assessor had neglected
to attach his affidavit to the assess
ment roll.
9. The right of tax sale purchas'
er at sale in 1896 to a lien for taxes
paid, guaranteed to him by sectior
| 1878, Revised Codes of 1895, was {
right which could not be impaired b.
subsequent legislation. (Young, j.
dissenting)
10. A percentage levy of roat
taxes by township authorities, baset
on the assessment roll of the previous
year. was a valid levy.
II. A certificate of sale issued OF
!. tax sale in 1897, which shows tha
one acre was sold out of a quartz
section, but does not identify the par
ticular acre referred to, is void.
IL, A tax sale certificate for sal
under the present revenue law nee
, not be executed under seal TIL
omission of a seal is not substantial
departure from the statutory form
because the county auditor has no of
fetal seal.
13. Section 1868, Revised Codes Q
1899, construed and held, under tn