Montgomery County sentinel. [volume] (Rockville, Md.) 1855-1974, 1916-01-14
An Opinion In Tax Sale Case Re-
Gently Filed By Judge Edward
G. Peter, OF The Circuit
Court Here.


The opinion is in the case of Thomas
H. Offutt ct al. VS.. Charles F. Chisholm and
Berry E. Clark. Treasurer, and reads, in
part, as follows:
This suit is brought by the heirs and
MORTGAGE Of the late John j. Palmer to
have vacated tax sale, made on the 10th
day of April. 1911, by the defendant. Berry
E. Clark, Treasurer of Montgomery County,
to the defendant, Charles F. Chisholm, Of
parcel of land, situate in Montgomery
county, which is designated as all of lot
numbered six, in block numbered seven, in
B. H. Warmers subdivision of land known
as Kensington Park, being the same land
that was acquired by John j. Palmer from
John B. Stubs and wife by deed dated
the goth day Of December, 1908. By
their deed of mortgage. dated the LIST day
of December, 1908, John j. Palmer and his
wife conveyed this property tothe plaintiff.
Thomas H. Offutt, to secure the payment
of promissory note for the sum of $1,000,
drawn by John J. Palmer in favor of
Thomas H. Offutt. of even date with the
mortgage, payable three years after date.
with interest from date. payable semi
annually. The principal of this debt. with
interest thereon from the LIST day of De-
cember, 1911, remains unpaid.
THE State and county taxes levied on
said property by the County Commissioners
of Montgomery County in June. 1910. not
having been paid, for the payment thereof,
on the second Monday in April, 1911. said
property was sold by the defendant, Clark.
to the defendant. Chisholm, Tor $500,
which sale was reported to this Court
and by an order thereof passed on the
9th day of June. 1911. finally ratified and
confirmed.
"0n the 18th day of May. 1912, John j.
Palmer died. intestate, seized of said
land, subject to said mortgage and tax
sale. leaving him surviving his widow
Julia E. Palmer. and three infant children
his only heirs.
THE said property not having been re-
deemed from said tax sale within the statu-
tory limit Of two years. by his deed. of
date the 2lst day Of May. 1918. the defen-
dant. Clark. as Treasurer, conveyed said
land to the defendant, Chisholm.
THE original bill was filed herein on the
date last above written by Thomas H.
Offutt, as MORTGAGE, and Minnie Palmer,
one of the heirs of John j. Palmer. by her
next friend, and. by leave Of the Court. it
was subsequently amended so as to make
the other heirs of John j. Palmer plain
tiffs. as well as to make other substantial
alterations therein. The defendants have
appeared and answered, the testimony
has been taken by the parties. their coun-
sci have been heard and the proceedings
read and considered.
While the bill as finally presented to
the Court contains numerous assignments
of error upon the part of the treasurer con-
corning the regularity of his conduct of
this sale, the one principally. If not exclu-
sively, relied upon at the hearing by the
solicitors for the plaintiffs was that he
had not advertised the sale for the length
of time prescribed by the statute confer
ring upon him the power to sell property
for the payment of delinquent taxes.
ut is conceded the notice of this sale
was inserted in two weekly newspapers,
printed and published in this county, on
the 18th and oath days of February and
the 3rd and 10th days of March. 1911. and
that no additional notice thereof was pub
lished. By reference to the calendar for
1911, it is found the second Monday of
March in that year fell on the 18th day of
the month. Thus it appears only three
weeks elapsed between the first and last
publication of the notice and but twenty
four days between the first publication
and the second Monday in March follow
ing. The statute says the notice shall be
published for four successive weeks before
the second Monday in March. and, as there
are twenty-eight days in four weeks, to
crafty the legal requirement at least
twenty-eight days must elapse between
the first and last publication of this notice.
This construction of the statute under con-
sideration is supported by Early vs.. Doe,
l6 Howard, $40.
THE Court Of Appeals Of this State. in
a number of cases. has held that defec-
tive notice of a tax sale rendered the sale
void.
THE evidence shows that the defendant,
Chisholm, has not at any time been in
either the actual or constructive possession
OF this property. This being so. the plain
tiffs have properly appealed to this Court
to remove the cloud resting on the title
because of said tax sale and the deed
made in pursuance thereof. Stewart VS..
Mayor. 81 Md. Asa.
Upon the payment by the plaintiffs, or