Emery v. Harrison
| Decision Date | 01 January 1852 |
| Parties | Emery versus Harrison. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
The rejection of the deed from Theophilus T. Ware for seventy acres of land, to be followed by intermediate deeds down to the plaintiff, is assigned for error. It is alleged, that the said Ware was collector of internal revenue for the 10th collection district of Pennsylvania, and as such had authority to sell the land for the non-payment of the internal tax imposed by the government of the United States. But there is no evidence whatever on the record, nor was such given to the court below, that Ware was collector of any district within the state, particularly of the seventh district in which the land lies, or that he was the designated collector for the sale of lands, in the state, for the non-payment of taxes which had not been sold by the collectors of the several districts. This court cannot say that he had any authority to make sale of the land. Nor did it appear that any one of the pre-requisites of the act of congress, for the purpose of attaching the lien of the tax upon the land and making the sale lawful, was complied with. No evidence of assessment, nor of a personal call for the tax, within sixty days after its assessment; no evidence of there being no personal property from which it could have been levied, nor any evidence of advertisement of sale, as required, was given. Under such circumstances, the deed cannot but be considered as merely naked and void. Ware had no interest in the land or authority over it, either individually or officially, and the deed was properly rejected: 3 Cond. Rep. 308, and 4 Cond. Rep. 394.
In the cases cited from our state reports, 9 Watts 344, and 6 Barr 211, the sales were under state laws, for taxes on unseated lands, and the authority of the commissioners and treasurer to sell, in those cases, was undisputed and admitted. They were held, therefore, to be evidence against a mere intruder. But under the United States laws for non-payment of taxes, the law has been held differently for sufficient reason. Deeds without proof of authority or performance ofpre-requisites, are not even primâ facie evidence of right or title.
The next and only other error assigned is, the rejection of the deposition...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stewart v. Pergusson
...L. Ed. 1079; Fox v. Stafford, 90 N. C. 698; Jackson v. Shepard, 7 Cow. 88, 17 Am. Dec. 502; U. S. v. Allen (C. C.) 14 Fed. 263; Emery v. Harrison, 13 Pa. 317. As the collector has no general power to sell land at his discretion for the nonpayment of an assessment, but a special power only t......
-
Stewart v. Pergusson
...14 L.Ed. 1079; Fox v. Stafford, 90 N.C. 698; Jackson v. Shepard, 7 Cow. 88, 17 Am. Dec. 502; U.S. v. Allen (C. C.) 14 F. 263; Emery v. Harrison, 13 Pa. 317. As collector has no general power to sell land at his discretion for the nonpayment of an assessment, but a special power only to sell......