Court Opinion

ID: 9639595
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 16:41:16.19168+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:20.253621
License: Public Domain

The opinion of the court was delivered by
Burling, J.
This is an appeal by the defendant from a final judgment of the Superior Court, Chancery Division, Essex County, in which it was ordered and adjudged that the *315defendant specifically perform an agreement with the plaintiff to purchase certain real estate. The appeal was addressed to the Superior Court, Appellate Division, but has been certified by this court on its own motion.
A tax sale certificate for the land in question, known and designated on the tax maps of the City of Newark as Block 1833, Lot 16, No. 29 Camden Street, was acquired by the plaintiff on December 28, 1943, at its own sale of the land for unpaid taxes, pursuant to the general provisions of the law relating to the sale of property for unpaid taxes. Foreclosure proceedings to bar rights of redemption were conducted by the plaintiff in compliance with the In Rem Tax Foreclosure Act (1948), L. 1948, c. 96 (N. J. 8. A. 54:5-104.29 et seq.), and on November 5, 1948, final judgment was entered in the foreclosure proceedings in favor of the plaintiff. Subsequently, on January 25, 1949, a public sale was held by the plaintiff at which all the right, title and interest of the plaintiff in the said land was sold to the defendant, the highest bidder, for the sum of $100, subject to the acceptance of said bid by the Board of Commissioners, the governing body of the plaintiff. The bid was accepted by the Board of Commissioners by resolution adopted February 9, 1949. At the time of the sale the defendant paid $10 on account of the consideration price and agreed to pay the balance upon delivery to him by the plaintiff of a bargain and sale deed within 30 days from the date said bid was accepted by the governing body of the plaintiff. Within the time prescribed the plaintiff made the requisite tender, but the defendant sought and obtained an extension of time to complete performance. On April 12, 1949, the defendant refused to purchase the land, claiming that the In Rem Tax Foreclosure Act (1948), L. 1948, c. 96 (N. J. 8. A. 54:5-104.29 et seq.) is unconstitutional and that the plaintiff therefore had not become vested with a marketable title to the land under the foreclosure proceedings conducted thereunder. The plaintiff thereupon on April 29, 1949, filed its complaint seeking specific performance of the agreement to purchase. The defend*316ant’s answer charges that the aforementioned act is unconstitutional in that (1) it fails to provide, by service of process or by substituted service, for notice to the owner and other persons interested in the lands affected by the foreclosure; (2) it fails to provide for service of process upon infants and incompetents through guardians or other legal representatives; (3) it was here applied to the foreclosure of a tax certificate acquired by the plaintiff prior to the enactment thereof; (4) it impairs the obligation of contracts as existing between the City, as taxing authority, and the owner of the lands under foreclosure; and (5) it deprives the owner aird other parties in interest of the right of redemption. By reason of the foregoing objections the defendant claims that the proceedings under the act constitute a denial of “due process” and an impairment of the obligation of a contract.
Upon the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the pleadings the trial court entered its judgment in favor of the plaintiff, finding the constitutional objections to be unfounded and the title to the premises to be marketable. It is from this judgment that the defendant appealed.
The primary question to be determined on this appeal is whether the notice prescribed by the act is sufficient to satisfy the requirements of due process. In order to dispose of this question it is necessary to consider the nature of the particular proceeding and the object to be accomplished by the act. The act provides for the foreclosure by municipalities of tax sale certificates held by them for the purpose of summarily barring any rights of redemption in the lands embraced in such tax sale certificates. The right of redemption of land sold for delinquent taxes is not an absolute right but is dependent upon constitutional provisions or statutory grant. In the absence of any constitutional provisions respecting the right it exists only so far as specifically provided for by statute. In Simonion, Tax Sales in New Jersey, 2d Ed. (1925), at page 84, the following cogent language appears:
“It should also be borne in mind, at the risk of otherwise reaching erroneous conclusions, that neither the right to redeem nor the right *317to receive notice of redemption, is an absolute right, existing independently of statute, but occurs solely by legislative grace, which, in the absence of constitutional requirements to the contrary, it is entirely within the power of the law making body to enlarge, curtail or withhold altogether, and that while the right to receive notice can never logically occur without the concomitant right to make redemption, the latter is not necessarily, nor even ordinarily, a correlative from which the right to notice may be implied, but is usually much more extensive, and the right to notice must therefore be independently authorized.”
This concept of the right of redemption was recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States, in 1879, in Keely v. Sanders, 99 U. S. 441, 25 L. Ed. 327 (1879), wherein it was said:
“While it may be admitted that a statutory right of redemption is to be favorably regarded, it is, nevertheless, true, that it is a statutory right exclusively, and can only be claimed in the cases and under the circumstances prescribed.”
See also 54 A. L. B. 756, where, in a prefatory statement to an annotation of cases dealing with notice in proceedings to perfect tax titles, including notice of the tax sale and notice to redeem from the tax sale, it is said: “As will appear, the right to notice in tax proceedings is purely statutory and therefore each particular case must be referred to the statute in force at the time.” It was recognized by our former Court of Errors and Appeals in City of Paterson v. O’Neill, 32 N. J. Eq. 386 (E. & A. 1880), wherein it was said (at page 389):
“* * * In the charters of Elizabeth and Trenton, drawn under review in this respect in the cases of Campbell v. Dewieh, 5 C. B. Gr. 186, and Trustees, &e., v. Trenton, 3 Steio. 667, notice to the mortgagee was made necessary before his title could be divested. But such requirement is one of legislative discretion, and must be regarded merely as an additional protection for the mortgagee.”
The statutes in some states provide for the barring of a redemption right by the mere passage of a specified period of time after the tax sale without any requirement on the part of the purchaser at the sale to give notice to bar or take any *318further proceedings in court or elsewhere to establish his absolute title to the lands purchased at the sale. See 51 Am. Jur., Taxation, Par. 1097, pp. 953, 954, and Par. 1116, p. 964. Indeed, our first statute on the subject permitted redemption after the expiration of one year from the time of sale but did not require that any notice to redeem be given. L. 1863, c. 274, p. 497. See Simonton, supra. Thus it appears that the right of redemption is such that it can be barred without any notice if the statute creating the right so provides. While the constitutionality of statutes which provide for in rem or summary foreclosure of delinquent tax liens on real property has been challenged on many occasions on the ground that they violate the due process clause of the State and Federal Constitutions, the courts have uniformly sustained the constitutionality of such statutes. The only expression of judicial opinion contra, furnished to us, appears in an advisory opinion of the Supreme Court of Maine wherein the court, pursuant to a request of the state legislature, stated that a proposed statute which provided for notice to be given by the tax officer to the owner, at the expiration of eight months and within one year after the accrual of taxes, demanding payment of said tax within 10 days after service or mailing of said notice; providing for the recording of a certificate within 10 days thereafter in the event of nonpayment; and further providing that at the expiration' of 18 months after the recording of said tax lien, if the tax has not previously been paid or the tax lien redeemed, the town shall be conclusively presumed to have acquired an absolute title to the real estate described in such tax lien, was unconstitutional as it “would provide a method by which a person might be deprived of his property without due process of law.” See Opinion of the Justices, 139 Me. 420, 38 A. 2d 561 (Me. Sup. Ct. 1943). No reasons were given by the court in that case as a basis for its conclusion.
The rationale of the decisions sustaining such statutes is that the speedy collection of taxes, unfraught with procedural complications, is indispensable for the support of the govern*319ment and that proceedings for the collection of taxes are in rem and require no personal service of notice upon the owners or lienors of the land since, once the taxes on the land are duly assessed in accordance with the requirements of due process, the owners or lienors may be presumed to know that the land will be sold for nonpayment of taxes. This philosophy has been expressed by the Supreme Court of the United States on many occasions. In Winona & St. Peter Land Co. v. Minnesota, 159 U. S. 526, 40 L. Ed. 247 (1895), it is said, at p. 251 L. Pd.:
* * Questions of this kind have been repeatedly before this court, and the rule in respect thereto often declared. That rule is that a law authorizing the imposition of a tax or assessment upon property according to its value does not infringe that provision of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution which declares that no. state shall deprive any person of property without due process of law, if the owner has an opportunity to question the validity or the amount of it either before that amount is determined or in subsequent proceedings for its collection. McMillen v. Anderson, 95 U. S. 37 (24:335); Davidson v. New Orleans, 96 U. S. 97 (24:616); Hagar v. Reclamation Dist. No. 108, 111 U. S. 701, (28:569); Spencer v. Merchant, 125 U. S. 345 (31:763); Palmer v. McMahon, 133 U. S. 660 (33:772); Lent v. Tillson, 140 U. S. 316 (35:419); Pittsburg, C. C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Backus, 154 U. S. 421 (38:1031). That the notice is not personal but by publication is not sufficient to vitiate it. Where, as here, the statute prescribed the court in which and the time at which the various steps in the collection proceedings shall be taken, a notice by publication to all parties interested to appear and defend is suitable and one that sufficiently answers the demand of due process of law.”
In Lehigh v. Green, 193 U. S. 79, 48 L. Ed. 623 (1904), it is said, at page 627, L. Pd.:
“In the statute under consideration, for the purpose of collecting the public revenue, the state has provided for the enforcement of a lien by the purchaser at a tax sale, and authorized him to proceed against the land subject to the tax, to enforce the right conferred by the state. The state has a right to adopt its own method of collecting its taxes, which can only be interfered with by Federal authority when necessary for the protection of rights guaranteed by the Federal Constitution. In authorizing the proceedings to enforce the payment of the taxes upon lands sold to a purchaser at tax *320sale, the state is in exercise of its sovereign power to raise revenues essential to carry on the affairs of state and the due administration of the laws. This fact should not be overlooked in determining the nature and extent of the powers to be exercised. ‘The process of taxation does not require the same kind of notice as is required in a suit at law, or even in proceedings for taking private property under the power of eminent domain. It involves no violation of due process of law when it is executed according to customary forms and established usages, or in subordination to the principles which underlie them.’ Bell’s Gap R. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 134 U. S. 232, 239, 33 L. Ed. 892, 896, 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 533, 535.
“In authorizing the proceedings under the statute to enforce the lien of the purchaser, who has furnished the state its revenue in reliance upon the remedy given against the land assessed, the state is as much in the exercise of its sovereign power to collect the public revenues as it is in a direct proceeding to distrain property or subject it to sale in summary proceedings.
“Nor is the remedy given in derogation of individual rights, as long recognized in proceedings in rem, when the 14th Amendment was adopted. The statute undertakes to proceed in rem, by making the land, as such, answer for the public dues. Of course, merely giving a name to an action as concerning the thing rather than personal rights in it cannot justify the procedure if in fact the property owner is deprived of his estate without due process of law. But it is to be remembered that the primary object of the statute is to reach the land which has been assessed. Of such proceedings, it is said in Cooley on Taxation, 2d ed. 527: ‘Proceedings of this nature are not usually proceedings against parties; nor, in the case of lands or interest in lands belonging to persons unknown, can they be. They are proceedings which have regard to the land itself rather than to the owners of the land; and if the ownerá are named in the proceedings, and personal notice is provided for, it is rather from tenderness to their interests, and in order to make sure that the opportunity for a hearing shall not be lost to them, than from any necessity that the case shall assume that form.’ ”
In North Laramie Land Co. v. Hoffman, 268 U. S. 276, 69 L. Ed. 953 (1925), it is said, at page 957, L. Ed.:
“All persons are charged with knowledge of the provisions of statutes, and must take note of the procedure adopted by them, and when that procedure is not unreasonable or arbitrary, there are no constitutional limitations relieving them from conforming to it. This is especially the case with respect to those statutes relating to the taxation or condemnation of land. Such statutes are universally in force and are general in their application,—facts of which the landowner must take account in providing for the management of his *321property and safeguarding his interest in it. Owners of real estate may so order their affairs that they may be informed of tax or condemnation proceedings of which there is published notice, and the law may be framed in recognition of that fact. In consequence, it has been uniformly held that statutes providing for taxation or condemnation of land may adopt a procedure, summary in character, and that notice of such proceedings may be indirect, provided only that the period of notice of the initiation of proceedings and the method of giving it are reasonably adapted to the nature of the proceedings and their subject-matter, and afford to the property owner reasonable opportunity, at some stage of the proceedings, to protect his property from an arbitrary or unjust appropriation.”
See also Turpin v. Lemon, 187 U. S. 51, 47 L. Ed. 70 (1902); Ballard v. Hunter, 204 U. S. 241, 51 L. Ed. 461 (1907); Longyear v. Toolan, 209 U. S. 414, 52 L. Ed. 859 (1908); Ontario Land Co. v. Yordy, 212 U. 8. 152, 53 L. Ed. 449 (1909). Such philosophy is not inconsistent with the recent expression of the Supreme Court of the United States in Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank, 339 U. S. 306, 70 S. Ct. 652 (1950). That case involved the constitutional sufficiency of notice to beneficiaries on judicial settlement of accounts by the trustee of a common trust fund established under the New York Banking Law. The court decided that in such proceedings a state statute requiring that notice be given to beneficiaries solely through the medium of publication in a local newspaper was incompatible with the requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment as a basis for adjudication depriving known persons whose whereabouts are also known of substantial property rights. The difference between a proceeding for the settlement of a trust account by a banking institution and a proceeding by a political subdivision of the state to enforce the payment of taxes which have been regularly assessed and levied is patent. The court, in the Mullane case, in discussing the rights of owners of tangible property within a state to notice of proceedings affecting such property, said:
“* * * When the state within which the owner has located such property seizes it for some reason, publication or posting affords an additional measure of notification. A state may indulge the assumption that one who has left tangible property in the state either has *322abandoned it, in which case proceedings against it deprive him of nothing. Cf. Anderson National Bank v. Luckett, 321 U. S. 233; Security Savings Bank v. California, 263 U. S. 282; or that he has left some caretaker under a duty to let him know that it is being jeopardized. Ballard v. Hunter, 204 U. S. 241; Huling v. Kawy Valley R. Co., 130 U. S. 559. As phrased long ago by Chief Justice Marshall in The Mary 9 Crunch, 126, 144, ‘It is the part of common prudence for all those who have any interest in (a thing) to guard that interest by persons who are in a situation to protect it.’ ”
The reasoning of the Supreme Court of the United States in the foregoing eases involving the assessment and collection of taxes has been applied by various state courts where the question has been raised in comparatively recent years. In Napier v. City of Springfield, 304 Mass. 174, 23 N. E. 2d 157 (Sup. Jud. Ct. Mass. 1939), it is said (at page 160):
“* * .* rjijjg generai trend of decisions indicates that once a valid assessment of taxes and a sale for nonpayment of the same have been made, the method of foreclosure of the right to redeem lies within the legislative discretion (citing cases in various jurisdictions). Accordingly statutes regulating such foreclosures that provide for little or no notice thereof have been held constitutional, and in some instances statutes that provide for automatic foreclosure or divestiture of title by mere lapse of time have also been held constitutional (citing cases in various jurisdictions).”
' See also Gathwright v. Baltimore, 181 Md. 362, 30 A. 2d 252, 145 A. L. R. 590 (Md. C. of A. 1943); Pottoch v. Mellott, 41 Del. 361, 22 A. 2d 843 (1941); City of New Rochelle v. Echo Bay Water Front Corporation, 182 Misc. 176, 42 N. Y. S. 2d 645; affirmed by Appellate Division, 49 N. Y. S. 2d 673; affirmed by Court of Appeals, 294 N. Y. 678, 60 N. E. 2d 838 (1945); certiorari denied, 326 U. S. 720 (1945). See also 51 Am. Jur., Taxation, par. 1123, p. 969, and 160 A. L. B. 1026 et seq. In Spitcaufsky v. Hatten, 353 Mo. 94, 182 S. W. 2d 86, 160 A. L. R. 990 (Mo. Sup. Ct. 1944), it was held that a statute providing for an in rem foreclosure of delinquent tax liens on notice by publication addressed solely to the lands without naming personal defendants and without authorizing any personal judgment was not violative of the due process clauses of the State or Federal Constitu*323tions. In. Cota v. McDermott, 16 N. W. 2d 54, 155 A. L. R. 1271 (N. D. Sup. Ct. 1944), it was said that the right of redemption from a tax sale is accorded as a matter of legislative grace and that if no notice to redeem is required by the statute, no notice need be given.
It must be observed that a tax proceeding is not a suit between parties but is the exercise of the sovereign’s prerogative power to tax. The state is the one party; the property the other. The doctrine to be evolved from the cases is that where the owner of property is given a right to redeem by statute and has had the opportunity to contest the assessment, the extinguishment of his fights in the property, either by the tax sale itself or by subsequent proceedings, may be accomplished by a strict adherence to the enabling statute which may limit the notice to be given of the proposed action to bar the right of redemption to posting or publication or no notice other than the statute itself, and any of said forms of notice shall be sufficient to satisfy the requirements of constitutional due process both as to residents and nonresidents. See 145 A. L. R. 597 and cases therein cited.
An analysis of the In Rem Tax Foreclosure Act (1948), L. 1948, c. 96 (IV. J. S. A. 54:5-104.29), the act presently challenged, is in order. The application of the act is limited to tax sale certificates held by municipalities and provides that: .
“This act shall be liberally construed as remedial legislation to encourage the barring of rights of redemption, and is an alternate and additional remedy to any other remedy provided by law, and shall apply to certificates of tax sales heretofore or hereafter issued and held by a municipality.”
The act prescribes, inter alia, the following: (1) the proceeding is in rem, par. 4 (IV. J. S. A. 54:5-104.32); (2) there can be no personal decree against any person, par. 5 (IV. J. S. A. 54:5-104.33); (3) the action cannot be instituted until after the expiration of two years from the date of the tax sale and it must appear that “no part of any general land taxes levied and assessed for the four calendar years *324next preceding the date of the petition against the land covered by such certificate has been paid,” pax. 6 (N. J. S. A. 54:5-104.34); it is observed, at this point, that while assessments for benefits for municipal improvements are a lien on the land on which they are assessed, B. 8. 54:5-7, to enforce the payment of which the land may be sold, B. 8. 54:5-19, as amended L. 1944, c. 108, the in rem foreclosure proceedings authorized by the present act are limited to cases where “no part of any general land laxes levied and assessed for the four calendar years next preceding the date of the petition * * * has been paid.” There is a distinction between general land taxes, which are levied for the purpose of raising general public revenue, and assessments for benefits for municipal improvements, which are levied as a means of paying in whole or in part for local improvements of a public nature. See 51 Am. Jur., Taxation, par. 11, p. 45; 48 Am. Jur., Special or Local Assessments, par. 1 el seq., p. 564 et seq. Thus, while the sale and subsequent foreclosure proceedings may include assessments for municipal improvements, the nonpayment of any part of four years general land taxes is a sine qua non to the institution of the proceedings under the act; hence the act cannot be resorted to where only assessments for municipal improvements are unpaid. (4) The municipality, b3r resolution, must prepare a tax foreclosure list containing, inter alia, a description of the premises, the amount required to redeem, and the name of the person last appearing as owner, par. 7 (N. J. 8. A. 54:5-104.35); (5) a petition must be filed with the court setting forth the tax foreclosure list, the description of the lands affected, and the names of the persons who by the public records appear to be the owners, pars. 8, 9, 10 (N. J. 8. A. 54:5-104.36, 37, 38); (6) a copy of the petition must be filed with the municipal tax collector, the county recording officer and the Attorney General, par. 13 (N. J. S. A. 54:5-104.41); (7) the municipality must secure, from the court, an order of publication under which a statutory form of foreclosure notice, which shall include a copy of the tax foreclosure list, must be published once in a *325newspaper designated by the court and circulating in the municipality, pars. 18, 19 (N. J. 8. A. 54:5-104.46, 47); (8) within 15 days after publication of the notice a copy thereof must be posted in the office of the tax collector, the office of the county recording officer, and in three other conspicuous places within the taxing district in which the land is located, par. 33 (N. J. S. A. 54:5-104.50); (9) notice may be mailed, within 15 days after publication, to each person having any title, lien, claim or interest in the land, but failure to mail such notice does not invalidate the proceedings, par. 31 (N. J. 8. A. 54:5-104.49); (10) proof by affidavits of the requisite publication and posting is necessary to secure a final decree, par. 33 (N. J. 8. A. 54:5-104.51); (11) any person claiming a right, title or interest in, or to, or lien upon the land may file an answer within 45 days of the date of publication of the notice, par. 34 (IV. J. 8. A. 54:5-104.53); (13) redemption shall be made at the office of the tax collector, at any time after the filing of the petition, and before final decree, par. 33 (N. J. 8. A. 54:5-104.60); (13) the decree shall give complete relief, by barring all right of redemption and vesting an absolute and indefeasible estate of inheritance in fee simple in the lands in the petitioner, and the decree shall be binding and final upon all persons having any interest in the lands, “including the State of Few Jersey, and any agency and political subdivision thereof, and their heirs, devisees and personal representatives, and their, or any of their heirs, devisees, executors, administrators, grantees, assigns or successors in right, title or interest notwithstanding any infancy or incompeteney of such person or persons, and upon all other persons, their heirs, devisees and personal representatives, and their or any of their heirs, devisees, executors, administrators, grantees, assigns or successors in right, title or interest,” par. 36 (IV. J. S. A. 54:5-104.64); (14) the decree may be reopened, by publication therefor, within three months from the date of recording, upon the grounds of lack of jurisdiction or fraud in the conduct of the suit, par. 39 (N. J. 8. A 54:5-104.67).
*326Thus it is observed that the statute under attack provides for notice to be given of the proceedings to bar redemption in the following manner: publication and posting are mandatory; mailing is permissive. In conjunction with the notice of the foreclosure proceedings it must be observed that our statutes relating to the initial assessment of taxes and subsequent tax sales for delinquent taxes provide for notice and an opportunity to be heard. R. 8. 54:4—38 provides that each assessor, 10 days before filing the completed assessment list shall give public notice in at least one newspaper circulating within his taxing district of a time and place when and where the assessment list may be inspected by any taxpayer for the purpose of enabling the taxpayer to confer informally with the assessor respecting the assessments made against the taxpayer or his property so that errors may bo corrected. R. 8. 54:3-21, as amended L. 1945, o. 125, provides an opportunity for a taxpayer feeling aggrieved by the assessment against his property to appeal to the county board of taxation. R. 8. 54:2—39, as amended L. 1944, c. 240, and L. 1946, c. 161, provides for an additional appeal from the judgment of the county board of taxation to the Division of Tax Appeals in the State Department of Taxation and Einanee. R. 8. 54:5-19, as amended L. 1944, c. 108, provides for the sale of real property when unpaid taxes or any municipal lien, or part thereof, on such property remains in arrears on July 1st in the calendar year following the calendar year when the same became in arrears. R. 8. 54:5-25, as amended L. 1945, c. 232, provides that a public notice shall be given of the time and place of sale, the notice stating a description of the property, the owner’s name, and the total amount due thereon. R. 8. 54:5-26 provides for copies of the notice to be set up in five of the most public places in the municipality, and a copy to be published in a newspaper circulating in the municipality, once in each of the four calendar weeks preceding the calendar week containing the day appointed for the sale. R. S. 54:5-27 provides for the mailing of a copy of the notice to the owner, although failure to so mail shall not invalidate the proceeding.
*327A consideration of the notice prescribed by L. 1948, c. 96 (N. J. 8. A. 54:5-104.29 et seq.) in the light of the prescribed notice and opportunities for hearing and appeal incident to the assessment of the tax, and the prescribed notices incident to the tax sale itself, result in the inescapable conclusion that the statute under attack clearly meets the requirements of constitutional due process as delineated in the numerous decisions’ of the Supreme Court of the United States and of the various state courts in which the question has been passed upon.
The next problem to be considered relates to the ques•tion of whether the challenged act is constitutional insofar as tax lien certificates created prior to its adoption are sought to be affected. Our answer is in the affirmative. In Rodgers v. Cressman, 98 N. J. Eq. 209 (Ch. 1925), a case which has been often cited and followed by our courts, it was decided that a statute which takes away, reduces the time for, or otherwise impairs the vested right of redemption is unconstitutional, and that the rights of a private person purchasing at a tax sale are governed, as to the owner’s right of redemption, by the law in force at the time of the sale. See also Harrington Co. v. Jones, 104 N. J. Eq. 377 (Ch. 1929); affirmed, 106 N. J. Eq. 280 (E. & A. 1930); Harrington Co. v. Chopke, 110 N. J. Eq. 574 (E. & A. 1932). In Nelson v. Naumowicz, 1 N. J. 300 (1949), this court, citing Rodgers v. Gressman, supra, said that the rights and liabilities under tax sale proceedings rest upon statute and particularly as to the owner’s right to redeem against private persons holding the tax sale certificates upon the law in force at the time of the sale. The restriction of the applicable law at the time of the tax sale to the rights of private persons holding the tax sale certificates was advisedly stated by the court in Rodgers v. Cressman, supra; the authority cited by the court for the statement in that case was 12 G. J., Const. Law, par. 524, p. 966. The same authority, however, says: “But in the case of land purchased by the state for the nonpayment of taxes, the time allowed the owner to redeem may be extended by a subsequent *328statute as no vested rights of private persons are impaired, thereby.” Be that as it may, it is clear that no vested right of redemption is taken away, reduced or otherwise impaired by the challenged act. The right of redemption is preserved but the remedy for the enforcement of the tax collection is changed. It has been aptly said that there is no vested right in a mode of procedure and a delinquent taxpayer has no vested right in any existing mode of tax collection. In League v. Texas, 184 U. S. 156, 46 L. Ed. 478 (1902), the court said:
“That a state may adopt new remedies for the collection of taxes, and apply those remedies to taxes already delinquent, without any violation of the Federal Constitution, is not a matter of doubt. A delinquent taxpayer has no vested right in an existing mode of collecting taxes. There is no contract between him and the state that the latter will not vary the mode of collection. Indeed, generally speaking, a party has no vested right in a mere matter of remedy; that is subject to legislative change. And a new remedy may be resorted to unless in some of its special provisions a constitutional right of the debtor or obligor is infringed. ‘There is no vested right in a mode of procedure. Each succeeding legislature may establish a different one, providing only that in each are preserved the essential elements of protection.’ ”
See also Cota v. McDermott, supra. See also Shade v. Colgate, 3 N. J. 91 (1949).
It is next contended tliat the act is defective because it does not provide specially for the protection of infants, the insane and others under disability who may have an interest in the lands. It is sufficient to say that notice in a tax proceeding in rem is notice to the whole world and, as succinctly stated in Levy v. Newman, 130 N. Y. 11, 28 N. E. 660 (C. of A. 1891), “The right to redeem lands sold to enforce the collection of taxes assessed against it is purely statutory, and statutes providing the procedure for assessing and collecting taxes, for the sale of land for their nonpayment, and for the redemption of lands sold are applicable to infants and persons under disabilities, unless they are excepted from their operation * * *.” Such persons are specifically included within the operation of the challenged act. See N. J. 8. A. 54:5-104.64.
*329Lastly, it is contended that tax lien foreclosure actions are to be strictly construed in favor of persons having interests in the lands. It is true that courts have a repugnance to forfeitures and consider that where notice is required to be given by a statute, the requirement is a jurisdictional sine qua non and the right of redemption cannot be barred unless the notice is given in strict compliance with the statute, see Rusch v. John Duncan Land & Mining Co., 211 U. S. 526, 53 L. Ed. 312 (1909); Bonded Certificate Corp. v. Widley, 137 N. J. Eq. 564 (E. & A. 1946), but the present contention is inappropriate to this appeal because it is conceded'by the defendant in his answer and on oral argument before this court that the foreclosure proceedings here involved “were conducted by the plaintiff in full compliance with the In Rem Tax Foreclosure Act (1948) R. 8. 54:5-104.29.”
We conclude that the challenged act does not contravene the requirements of due process guaranteed by the Federal and State Constitutions; nor does it impair the obligation of a contract in contravention of the respective constitutions.
The judgment is affirmed but without costs.