Court Opinion

ID: 9812070
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 22:36:20.755538+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:24:05.990402
License: Public Domain

CLlabb:, O. L,
dissenting. The sole question at issue is the validity of the deed executed by the collector of United States revenue to the defendant. It is stated in the opinion that “the recitals in the deed are sufficient in their scope to show that the assessment of the taxes had been duly made and that the necessary steps had been taken to subject the land to their satisfaction, upon failure of the owner 'ter pay.” These were the only respects as to which defects were alleged, and Avery v. Rose, 15 N. C., 549; Fox v. Stafford, 90 N. C., 298, and other cases are cited as authority that such facts must be proved aliunde the recitals in the deed. Such formerly was the la,w, but long experience having demonstrated that under such ruling no tax title had ever been sustained in this State, our State, in 1887, eh. 137, made a radical change, “which, under the pressure of the same necessity has been enacted in other States,” King v. Cooper, infra, and made a tax deed prima facie evidence of the matters therein recited (and conclusive evidence as to some matter) and threw the burden to negative such recitals upon the tax delinquent. This act was passed after careful deliberation by the Legislature of 1885, which created a commission to report an act to that effect, and by the Legislature of 1887, which, with some amendments, adopted the report of the commission. That act has been sustained in Peebles v. Taylor, 118 N. C., 165; Sanders v. Earp, Ibid., 275; Moore v. Byrd, Ibid., 688; Powell v. Sikes, 119 N. C., 231; Lyman v. Hunter, 123 N. C., 508; King v. Cooper, 128 N. C., 347, and in several other cases.
The United States found it necessary and proper to pass a *286similar act, and section 3199, U. Si Rev. S'tat., reads as follows: “Tbe deed of sale given in pursuance of tbe preceding clause shall be prima facie evidence of tbe facts therein stated.” This plainly has reference to tbe recitals in tbe deed, like all other similar statutes, and not to the recitals in some preceding certificate. As it is held in the opinion herein that such “recitals in the deed are sufficient in their scope to show that the assessment of the taxes had been duly made, and that the necessary steps had been taken to subject the land to their satisfaction upon failure of the owner to pay,” and there is no evidence to contradict this, and no allegation of any defect in any other particular, it follows that in the further language of said section 3199, U. Si Rev. Stats., the deed must “operate as a conveyance of all the right, title and interest the party had in and to the real estate thus sold.”
The validity of this U. SI statute in thus changing the rule by making the recitals in the deed prima facie and placing tlie burden to show irregularities upon the tax defaulter, has never been called in question. But the United States Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed the constitutionality of similar State statutes, which decisions and those of the State courts, all to the same effect, may be found collected in 2 Cooley Taxation (3 Ed.), 1007, note 3, and 1008 and 1009, and very numerous cases in the notes thereto. The effect of these statutes is thus summed up (p. 1007) :
“If the tax deed is made prima facie evidence of the regularity of all proceedings and of title in the purchaser, this effects an entire change in the burden of proof, releasing the purchaser thereof, and casting it upon the party who would contest the sale. The purchaser is no longer under the necessity of showing the correctness of the proceedings, but the contestant must point out in what particular he claims them to be incorrect.”
The power to enact, and this effect of, the statute (U. S. *287Rev. Stats., 3199), is sustained by three pages of citations, among them many from the United States Supreme Court, each of which supports the validity of this plaintiffs deed. With the great increase in the subjects under government requiring expenditures and the greater increase everywhere in the rate of taxation, such acts become imperatively necessary. The evasion of any property from payment of its due share of taxation increases the rate levied upon those who pay. Collection can only he enforced by sale, or the fear thereof. There can be no sales without purchasers, and no 'purchasers unless they can get good titles. Those who pay their taxes honestly should be protected by the government from also being assessed to pay the taxes of those who default. Under the old system this was well nigh impossible, for (as already stated) no tax title was ever sustained by the 'Supreme Court of this State till since the passage of the act of 1887, above cited. The Federal statute'(sec. 3199) is of the same tenor as our act of 1887, and was enacted for the same reason. We should give it the same construction and enforcement we have given our own statute.