Baumgardner v. Fowler

• Decision Date: 24 March 1896
• Citation: 34 A. 537,82 Md. 631
• Parties: BAUMGARDNER ET AL. v. FOWLER ET AL.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

34 A. 537

82 Md. 631

BAUMGARDNER ET AL. v. FOWLER ET AL.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

March 24, 1896

Appeal from circuit court, Garrett county.

Action by Henry Baumgardner and John D. Skiles against James B Fowler and Catharine Burger. Decree for defendants, and plaintiffs appeal. Reversed.

Argued before BRYAN, McSHERRY, FOWLER, BRISCOE, and PAGE, JJ.

R. T Semmes and John T. Mitchell, for appellants.

G. S Hamill, for appellees.

BRISCOE J.

The plaintiffs are residents of the state of Pennsylvania, and were the owners of four tracts of land situate in district No. 4 of Garrett county, and known by the patented names of "Factory," containing 1,016 1/4 acres; "Mill Seat," 597 1/4 acres; "Pig Iron," 16 acres; and "Log Yard," 14 acres. These lands were assessed on the books of Garrett county in the names of Thomas and Henry Baumgardner for the sum of $5,321; that is, Factory for $4,065, Mill Seat for $1,195, Pig Iron for $32, and Log Yard for $29. Subsequently the interest of Thomas was acquired by the plaintiff John D. Skiles, by deed dated the 22d of July, 1891. The taxes on these lands for the years 1890 and 1891, aggregating the sum of $123.20, remaining due and in arrear, these four tracts of land were advertised and sold by the treasurer of Garrett county to satisfy these taxes, and were purchased by the defendants, James B. Fowler and Catharine Burger, for the sum of $206. It is conceded that the appellants never knew of the sale until after the tax deed had been executed, and after the expiration of the time for the redemption of the land. Subsequently an offer was made to redeem by paying the purchase money and all necessary expenses, but this offer was refused by the purchasers. And this bill is filed by the appellants in the circuit court for Garrett county, charging that the tax sale was irregular and void, and asking that the treasurer's deed be annulled and set aside. The case was considered by the court below upon bill, answer, and proof, and from the order dismissing plaintiffs' bill this appeal has been taken.

It has frequently been decided by this court that the effect of an order of ratification of a tax sale by the court, under the provisions of article 81 of the Code, is to relieve the purchaser from the onus of proving the regularity of the proceedings, and to establish a prima facie case; but the party in possession can assail the title of the purchaser by proving that the provisions of the law have not been complied with. But it is contended on behalf of the appellees that the local statute of Garrett county under which this sale was had (Acts 1890, c. 566) provides that the order of ratification by the court shall be conclusive as to the regularity of the treasurer's proceedings and of the sale, except in cases of fraud or collusion between the treasurer and purchaser and, consequently, the appellants here are precluded from inquiring into the regularity of this sale. This was the ruling of the court below, and the ground upon which the plaintiffs' bill was dismissed. But we cannot assent to this contention. In the case of Marx v. Hanthorn, 148 U.S. 172, 13 S.Ct. 508, the supreme court, in an opinion by Justice Shiras, lays down the conclusion reached by the courts upon this subject. It is competent for the legislature to declare that a tax deed shall be prima facie evidence, not only of the regularity of the sale, but of all prior proceedings and of title in the purchaser; but the legislature cannot deprive one of his property by making his adversary's claim to it, whatever that claim may be, conclusive of its own validity, and it cannot, therefore, make the tax deed conclusive evidence of the holder's title to the land. And Mr. Cooley, in treating the...