Montgomery County sentinel. [volume] (Rockville, Md.) 1855-1974, 1928-03-23

Tax Title Deeds Are InvaIidated.
The Court Of Appeals of Maryland, by
Justice Offutt. has just handed down a
decision concerning the sale Of real prop
erty for non-payment of State and county
taxes in Prince George County which may
have far-reachine effect upon the validity
| of tax sales by county treasurers during
recent years and may result in invali-
dating numerous tax title deeds
10 1919 Paul B. Pugh & Co.. of New York,
owned lots II and IS. block 81, Riverdale.
March 1. 1920. Herman Z. Burgess. then
county treasurer. sold the lots for non-pay-
ment OF State and county taxes TO James
H. Rimmer. Riverdale contractor. and the
latter and his wife, on December 4, 1922,
sold the property to the trustees of the
Rverdale Presbyterian Church. who pro-
ceeded to make improvements on it. June
8, 1925. Pugh & Co. brought an ejectment
action to recover the lots. and the Circuit
Court for Prince Georges County. Judges
Joseph C. Msttingly and William M. Loker.
decided 10 favor of the company for the
recovery Of the lots and at the same time
rendered a verdict requiring Pugh & Co. to
pay the church the sum of $564.60 for
taxes paid and improvements made on the
property.
The church trustees. through their attor-
neys. S. Martin Peach and Frank NJ Steph-
en-. appealed from the decision Of the lower
court returning the lots to Push & Co. The
Court Of Appeals sustained the lower court
in both its decisions awarding the lots to
Pugh & Co. and requiring the company TO
pay the church trustees $56460 for taxes
and improvements. The whole question
rested upon the legality Of the tax deed
given to Rimmer, and the Court Of Appeals
declared that this deed was invalid
In its rather extended opinion the appel
late court declared: AN examination Of
the advertisement shows that it failed to
state the quantity OF land to be sold or the
location Of the property. The purpose
Of such an advertisement has been said to
be dual-first. TO warn the owner that his
property Is about to be sold for taxes, and,
second. to appraise the prospective buyers
of what property the treasurer proposed to
sell" The court holds that the advertise
ment under consideration was insufficient
to inform persons who might desire to bid
/ on the property OF its area and location.
The mere designation Of lots II and 10,
block "a, Riverdale. liber 4. folio TIA" was
not sufficient. There was nothing to show
whether that was record Of the treasurer's
office, the county commissioners office or
a land record Of Prince Georges County.
The advertisement" continued the court
"oueht at least be definite enough to iden-
tify the property advertised without the
assistance Of a conveyancet and ought not
TO require its identity to depend upon
euesses or differences. IL our opinion.
the advertisement failed to comply with
the plain and obvious intent OF the statute.
THE second proposition is that the sale
was void because neither OF the lots was
offered separately. but both were offered and
sold as an entirety The plaintiffs con-
tention is that only so much Of the prop
erty should have been sold as was neces-
sary TO pay the taxes in arrears costs, in
terest and penalties" The court held that
the contention that IL was necessary to
sell both lots to pay the taxes on both lis
so repusnant to equity. fairness. reason
and Justice that we will not assume that
the legislature intended It to be so con-
strued. unless such intent is expressed in
the clearest and most explicit language
But the language employed in the statute
"A tax sale shall consist Of all the real estate
10 any election district Of the county, ad