Year: 1872

In the month OF October the Uni


ted States Circuit Court, at De


Moinss, made an important tax It'll,


decision. For tho benefit of all ou


readers We give complete synopsis


Of it. Read carefully. the case u


question was AZ action Of right bro


TO recover certain land IN Grund,


comfy. The case was tried at Til,


last May term before Judge Love-


On the trial At that time, It appeared


in evidence that the land had beer
sold for taxes to person who, after


he got q tax deed, sold the land SC
the defendant. Then tho plaintiff


bought the original or patent It'll,
and commenced this suit TO recover


the land. The evidence showed tha,
there was a fraudulent combination OF


ring among the bidders at the IA,
sale, and 90 the jury found by thcil
verdict. But the plaintiff did no,
prov that he had paid oil the ,axs,
due on the land or rendered
the taxes for which the land had been
sold. Thsreupon the court held by
section 784 of the Revision the pay,
ment Of such taxes was . Sesdition
precedent to :hs commencement of an
action TO Question" the tar t lie
and that Notwithstanding the fraud
in the tax sale the plaintiff could ne,
recover, and directed judgment for
the defendant.


The court also decided that inas
much a. the defendant had purchased
the land in good faith, without know
ing the fraud, at tho tax aale, ,his title
was good, and he would be sustained
in preference to the original It'll Q
even if the plaintiff had rendered al!
taxes before he cemm snced the suit.


The plaintiff = counsel then moved
for q new trial, which was refused
He then appealed from the decision
of Judge Love: and applied to the
court in full bench TO set aside the
judgment and gran, new trial.


On Monday last the csse was ably
argued by counsel before Judges
Dillon and Love, and on Wednesday
the court rendered its opinion affirm
ing and fully sustaining the opinion
Of tho court made on tho trial. and
hol ling that IN NJ event could the
plaintiff commence An action to set
aside tax title without first paying
the taxes; that tender OF taxes after
suit Is brought would avail nothing
that the statute was pefemptory, it
must be done before the tax title could
be Questioned" and this provision
was highly equitable.


The court also held that . fraudu-
lent tax title was not absolutely void,
but only voidable. and if the tax title
purchaser sells the lax title to a third
person who buys it without knowing
OF the fraudulent sale, he is a bona
fds purchaser, aud his title will be
preferred and protected in prefer
encs TO that OF the original owner
who by his neglect and dsfaalt omit
ted or refused to pay his taxes, which
it was his duty to do.


1t follows from this decision that
% . fraudulent tax deed 10 not void,
but simply voidsoie, IL oasne. be s.t
aside or avoided in any action 0
right or At law, but the suit must be
commenced in equity fcr that pur-
pose, aud before the tax title 10 sold
to bona tide purchaser. Thss. points
have never been directly raised or de-
cidsd in the State courts, and are very
but are in harmony with the
tenor and spirit OF the decisions ofour
State courts. There seems now but
very little if any chance TO set aside
! tax title, and it behooves every
owner OF land to examine his tax 70.
,sipts and sec that he has paid his
taxOs