Sioux County pioneer., 1918-04-18
OFFICIAL
PROCEEDINGS
Of the Board of County Commissioners
OF Sioux County, North Dakota,
Fuit Yates. North Dakota

l'olt Yates North Dakota
April 2nd lbs.
tn" bnnid of county conn iSSiouerS nf Sioux
county mt in regular quarterly session ut
lur rJ'ifl house at . % clock u m., with Com
mle,oucr, j G. Leach, j. a. Stiles and W. II.
Chart, present. Minutes of previous meeting
rc;iil aud approved.
The county auditor was instructed TO adver.
tise for bids on the following road plows aud
10 inch road plowS To be delivered 20. b. Nc
1nto>ii Solen. Wa,auga Morris, own and ke.-
dron, Also eight 36 inch culverts three AZ / .ch
cuvcrLS. three II inch culveltS.
ON MOTION of 'mmi>sion ~ Cibart, Harry 3D.
knukc of keldron, was appointed load super
visor for lNcltlrou ROAD district.
Onmotion of Commissioner Leach, the fol
lowing seed grain applications were allowed:
Application NO. Wheat 20 bushel. Oats
Is bushcl.
Application No ao--Wheat 80 bushel. Oats
81 hn>hcl. Barley buShcl
Application No. :l-Wheat 81 bushel, Speltz
Application No. -. Oats 40 bushel. Speltz
80 b,lshel.
Application No. a:-Rejected.
Application No, 81 Wheat So bushel.
The county auditor presented 10 the board a
number of applications for abatement and re.
fundnicnt of taxes paid under protest. and ii. ed
the following opinion on the subject, rendered
by States Attorney Edwards. johnson:
Solen, North Dakota.
Mar. -, 1913.
c. Christensen.
County Auditor,
Fort Yates N. d.
In Re Assessment of Homestead Lands
Dear Sir:
an opinion to whether or not homestead
land ipon which final proof had been made
but final payments not made. also where pay
ment> II; been made and final proof not sub
mittcd, ;.,>o land purchased from the United
Sla'eS Government through the Indian Depart
meut on contract. are aSSeSsuble, will say that
it is my opinion that in neither case is the land
asscs,;lblc until all conditions have been COM
p led with ana IL final receivers or registrars
made and final proof accepted. in other wolds
when an the equity of the United States has
been cxtnsushcd the land is assessable. but
not untll then. This does not mean that it is
not asssssable until final patent has been is.
sued. as thoie is sometimes u lapse OF ycai
between the issuance oJ u final receipt and
the Issuance of IL patent.
In view OF the common understanding that
has bosnH bad from Il recent decision of the
Fedrr c"Ir, ,, OF south Dakota in the cas- case Of
Suul1es v. Butte county is the effect that land
WITS ~. >esS;iDle before isSu nce of final proof,
VIII say that have carefully gone into that
case and lind that the facts there differ great
" troSl the facts applying in Sioux county,
the, (. the question came up on the following
facts: SquireS entered upon homestead In a
Irrigation project and under the regulations
governing the entry and proof, the cntryn.an
co;nd live upon the land Il certain time and
then make final proof and after same had been
accepted IL letter was issued by the Register
and by the terms of same The eutryman cou.d
ahenate the land or mortgage some, but Ut The
the project must be paid or The land revert TO
the [ove rnmeut, under ,hiS state Of fact IL can
re;iN!tv be seen that the entryman had an as
se,>ablc equity in The land and in case OF non
payment OF thetaX his equity could be levied
upon and sold but not the land.
In the spring of 1915 the state tax commits
sioner advised Mr.. j. G. Smith, then ass ssor
in The west end OF the county. that homestead
WAS asses>ab!e after final proof had been
mndc, have gone over THIS matter with the
tax commission and they state that ut that
time tuey held the same as they do nOw: u
home ,tc;ld is not as G>Sable until all conditions
have been compiled with, however, at that
time the writer of the letter overlooked in
GLIDING the statement that final payments
must also nave been mace and it seems that
NY otfice rendered an oral opinion to the
bUaed before any assessment was made hold
ing honest cad was not assessable until the
governments equity had been wholly extin-
qushed.
/ trust this fully answers your inquiry.
YOuIS truly,
Edw. 5. Johnson
On motion Of Commissioner Leach seconded
by Commissioner Cbtrt, a. COlville was en-
gagged To examine the applications for tax
attachments and refunds and submit figures
showing the amount OF abatement or refund
each applicant would be entitled to under the
opinion above, and report ut next meeting.
The sheriff was authorized to have table
nude for his Office on motion OF Commissioner
Chart
!. Mrs Graydog appeared before the board and
made demand for $5uVt " damages for Soad