Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1909-03-24

which render it possible to perpetrate
this wrong which has been committed
The municipality in its own tax sales
is not responsible for the legislation
under which those tax sales are made.
They take their legislation from the
State, and Just the same DeForrest
keyes could reasonably be expected to
take his chances on the error of the
State of Maine. But the difficulty
here was that by the States own law
or lack of law this whole wrong arose.
The situation is absolutely different.
1t is the States own fault. and l thinl.
any legal man will bear me out in this
statement, and the fact that our SUI
preme court has decided that in the
case of a municipality man cannot
recover in an action at law. he cannot
recover from the municipality in the
case of defective tax title for which
he has paid his money, and any man
who bids at a municipal tax sale bids
with that decision before him; he takes
that chance, and the court has 50 de-
cded: whereas the State of Maine
has decided by q series of resolves if
YOU will follow them up that the man
does not take that chance in a situa-
ton like the present one. That is the
distinction, gentlemen, and | think it
is Il fair one.
Mr.. DAVIES: Mr.. Speaker, l would
like to inquire of the gentleman from
Waterville if it is his opinion, provid-
ing this TRANSACTION had happened be-
tween individuals. there would have
been any redress? 90 '.-..it r..
Mr. PATTANGALL: In my opinion
if one individual buys Of another by
quitclaim deed piece of land. an ac-
ton against the other individual to re
cover money as of warranty would
fail. l don't know just how an in
dividual could sell a tax title.
Mr.. DAVIES: Assuming that in
place of the State there was an in
dividual, and this precise situation had
happened, do you consider there would
have been no remedy between them
Mr. PATTANGALE: Certainly not.
Mr.. DAVIES: l differ with the gem
tleman from Waterville on that point.
and in reply to what he says as to the
measure beng referred to the Judiciary
committee, if you will permit me to
Sdy d worn. w Ileu ILLS LeS III e
was convened there was found in the
files of the judiciary committee vari-
Gus matters, and among them this re-
solve in favor of DeForrest Keyes. A
representative of Mr.. Keyes came to
the committee the first day that we
were in session and requested or sug-
gested that the matter be referred to
tn committee on claims. He was told
that we would take the matter under
advisement and would advise him later
in the day; and the judiciary COM
mittee decided to hear this matter it,
self. So much for the reply to the
gentleman from Watervil1e as to why
the committee on claims did not give
his matter attention. l believe he also
inquired as to why it was not reported
favorable before. The reason that it
was not reported favorably before was
inadvertently or otherwise, it went to
the latter part of the session and we
found that we could not agree in re-
gard to the matter. My recollection is
that there were three or four at that
time who were in favor of reporting
favorably upon the resolve and the
remainder of the committee were OPP
posed to it, and it was suggested by
somebody that it be referred to this
Legislature as there did not seem ID
be time at that stage of the session