The evening times. [volume] (Grand Forks, N.D.) 1906-1914, 1906-05-17
Supreme Court Decisions

In the Supreme Court, State of North
Dakota, September, 1905, Term
Louisa NJ. Mind, Respondent, VS..
valeria R. Myers and William H. Beck.
Appellants.
l. A certificate of sale for taxes
under Chapter 81, Laws of 1897.
(Sections 1881, ct seq, Revised Codes
OF 1899 Is not void on its face be-
cause of the failure to erase those
parts of the blank form which were
designated for use in case of a sale
on different terms, where the certificate
was otherwise in proper form and the
INCREASED parts could not mislead.
2. Under Section Is, Chapter 81,
Laws of 1897, (Section 1345, Revised
Codes of 1899, such a certificate is
prima facie evidence of a valid sale
without proof of precedent judg-
ment. young j. dissenting.)
g. The party attacking such GER
tificate has the burden of showing that
there was no valid judgment. young
]. dissenting.)
4. The provision in the woods
Law, Chapter g.. Laws of 1880 for
judgment before sale of taxes, was
merely legislative requirement and
was not inherently or constitutionally
necessary as condition precedent to
the right of the legislature to authorize
a sale of the property for unpaid taxes.
3. A sale under the woods Law"
pursuant to judgment apparently
valid, but in fact invalid for want of
Jurisdiction in the court to render it,
cannot be avoided in an action COM
menced more than three years after
the sale, where part of the taxes for
which the sale was made We're valid:
ana though the land has never been
occupied. Young, ]. dissenting.)
o. The notice of the time when the
risht to redeem from tax sale under
the Woods Law" will expire may be
mailed at the residence of the Ger
tificate holder, even though that resi-
dence is not within this state.
Z. The affidavit of mailing such
notice, filed with the clerk of court
pursuant to Section 1874, Revised
Codes of 1899, is competent evidence
of such mailing.
s. When the land is in in fact unoc-
cupied, it is not necessary to state that
fact in the affidavits filed pursuant to
Section 1874, Revised Codes of 1899,
in proof of service of the notice of ex-
piration of the time to redeem.
>. The party claiming title under a
tax sale certificate issued pursuant to
the Woods Law" need not prove that
no redemption has been made.
lSyllabus by the Court)
Appeal from the District Court of
Stutsman county, S. L. Glaspell Judge.
Marion Conklin. attorney for appel
ants.
John Knauf and Wicks, Paige &
Lamb, attorneys for respondent.
Opinion by Engerud, ].
The judgment is reversed and the
trial court will enter Judgment in
the usual form that the plaintiff Mind
and the defendant Myers have no
estate or interest in the land and
that the title thereto be adjudged to
be in defendant William H. Beck, and
that his title be quieted. The appell-
ant Beck to recover from respondent
taxable costs and disbursements of
both courts.
In the Supreme Court, State of North
Dakota, September. 1905, Term
-
State Finance Co., Respondent, VS..
William Fl. Beck and Valeria R. Myers.
Appellants.
1. The occasional cutting and re-
moval of hay from unoccupied lands
under permit from one claiming title
adverse to the plaintiffs grantor is not
sufficient to constitute adverse possess
ion so as to avoid plaintiffs deed for
maintenance.
2. Where two tracts of land are
assessed and taxed as single tract
the entire tax proceeding is nullity.
.. Where the same irregularity APP
pears on the face of all the proceedings
under the woods Law" (Chapter 81.
Laws of 1879 the judgment in that
proceeding is void.
1. Where there is an utter absence
of those things which are inherently
essential to a valid tax. equity cannot
require payment as condition to re-
lief from the proceedings.
5. certificate issued in evidence
of sale under the Woods Law" is,
it valid on its face, prima facie
evidence of valid judgment and sale
young, ]. dissenting.)
6. The certificate becomes con-
elusive evidence of valid sale if not
attacked in an action commenced with
in three years after the sale, unless
the judgment was paid before sale or
a redemption affected after the sale.
young, j. dissentingD
Z. Even if the judgement was void
the sale becomes valid If not attacked
within three years. unless a jurisdic-
tional defect in the antecedent tax pro-
ceedings can be shown Mind VS. Myers,
followed. young, J. dissentingJ