Court Opinion

ID: 9688395
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 17:45:21.749128+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:38.027132
License: Public Domain

Alexander, J.
(specially concurring).
I am not unwilling to concur in the findings of fact under which the signature of an ambiguous tax receipt was challenged by the production of a tax deed, supported by the roll and lists showing that the land was sold to Polk for the taxes of 1929. I am somewhat anxious, however, lest the prima facie validity supplied by a tax ■ deed may have suffered some impairment at our hands. I have been unable to find that the error by the tax collector respecting this land the previous year is of probative force to support the fact of a similar error the following year. The so-called tax receipt is self-contradicting since it indicates both that the taxes were paid, and also that the land was sold for nonpayment thereof. The latter interpretation is supported by the tax rolls and the lists of lands sold. The solution of this dilemma as an issue of fact may be justified. My chief concern, however, is only to preserve the efficacy of a tax deed to shift a substantial burden of proof onto the shoulders of a former owner.
Roberds, J., concurs in the above opinion.