Chadwick v. City of Cambridge

• Decision Date: 25 June 1918
• Citation: 230 Mass. 580,119 N.E. 958
• Parties: CHADWICK v. CITY OF CAMBRIDGE.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

230 Mass. 580

119 N.E. 958

CHADWICK

v.CITY OF CAMBRIDGE.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Middlesex.

June 25, 1918.

Exceptions from Land Court, Middlesex County; C. T. Davis, Judge.

Petition by Harry P. Chadwick against the City of Cambridge. To the ruling of the land court for petitioner, the City excepts. Exception overruled.

Wm. A. Parker, of Boston, for petitioner.

John A. L. Odde, Harry F. R. Dolan, and Peter J. Nelligan, City Sol., all of Boston, for respondent.

PIERCE, J.

This is a petition under the provisions of chapter 237 of the acts of 1915 to foreclose a tax title on land in Cambridge to which the respondent city of Cambridge holds earlier tax titles. The tax deeds under which the city claims liens for taxes were dated respectively in 1909, 1910, 1911, 1912 and 1913. The city never sold the land as unredeemed land under R. L. c. 13, § 67, St. 1909, c. 490, pt. 2, § 68, or St. 1915, c. 237, § 20. The tax deed under which the petitioner claims title was dated July 9, 1915. The validity of the several deeds by which the parties acquired their respective titles is not questioned, and each one was duly executed, delivered and recorded. At the trial the respondent city asserted:

‘That prior tax titles made by a city constitute a lien which is not extinguished by a subsequent sale for taxes, and that any decree for the petitioner in this case must be made subject to the respondent's lien.’

The presiding judge ruled and ordered as follows:

‘I rule that the petitioner's title is paramount to the lien claimed by the respondent. Unless the respondent files forthwith an offer to redeem there must be a decree for the petitioner forever foreclosing and barring all rights of redemption.’

To this ruling the respondent excepted.

The deeds of the collector conferred upon the city a fee and seisin subject to the right of redemption in the same manner it would upon an individual purchaser. R. L. c. 13, §§ 43, 48; St. 1909, c. 490, pt. 2, §§ 44, 49; Coughlin v. Gray, 131 Mass. 56;Parker v. Baxter, 2 Gray, 185, 189. The tax title is also subject to the later and paramount lien arising from taxes thereafter assessed. ‘For the lien of each year's tax is paramount to all previous liens.’ Keen v. Sheehan, 154 Mass. 208, 209, 28 N. E. 150; Parker v. Baxter, supra; Hunt v. Boston, 183 Mass. 303, 305, 67 N. E. 244;Abbott v. Frost, 185 Mass. 398, 70 N. E. 478.

The respondent does not dispute that ‘the rule generally stated is that a sale of land for a valid tax gives a paramount title, free from the ownership or incumbrance of rights previously existing which had been carved out of the property by the owner or which had been acquired in it by prescription or otherwise’ (Knowlton, C. J., in Hunt v. Boston, supra, and cases cited), but contends that the rule is not applicable where a municipality holds the earlier tax title. In support thereof it relies upon St. 1909, c. 490, pt. 2, § 67, as amended by St. 1915, c. 237, § 19, which reads:

‘If land is taken or purchased by a city or town, taxes shall, until foreclosure of the title so acquired, be assessed thereon as though the same were not so taken or purchased; and shall be deducted from the proceeds of the final sale.’

Also upon St. 1915, c. 237, § 18, which reads:

‘After the foreclosure by a city or town of the rights of redemption under a tax title or taking, as hereinabove provided, the land shall thereafter be held and disposed of like any land belonging to it and held for municipal purposes, and shall not while so held be assessed for taxes.’

Also upon St. 1909, c. 490, pt. 2, § 68, as amended by St. 1915, c. 237, § 20, which provides for the sale of unredeemed land

‘within two years after the time for...