Gomer v. Chaffee
| Decision Date | 01 December 1882 |
| Citation | 6 Colo. 314 |
| Parties | GOMER v. CHAFFEE. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Error to County Court of Arapahoe County.
THE case is stated in the opinion.
Mr. J W. HORNER, for plaintiff in error.
Messrs STALLCUP and LUTHE, for defendant in error.
This was an action brought in the county court of Arapahoe county April 6, 1878, by the plaintiff in error against the defendant in error to recover possession of lots twenty-nine and thirty, in block ninety, in Stiles' addition to the city of Denver.
The plaintiff, Gomer, claimed by chain of title from Stiles, the government patentee.
The defendant claimed title by virtue of a tax sale April 17, 1871, and a tax deed April 24, 1873, to one Peter Magnus, to whom defendant traced his title through several grantors.
He also interposed a plea of the statute of limitations; that the plaintiff failed to bring his action for the recovery of the premises within five years after the date of the tax sale of April 17, 1871. The court below held the tax deed void on its face, but gave judgment for the defendant on his plea of the statute of limitations.
The power of an officer making a tax sale is purely statutory. A statutory power must be exercised according to statutory directions. In no class of cases had this rule been more strongly insisted upon than in case of tax sales. A substantial, and in many cases a strict, compliance with the provisions of the law preparatory to and authorizing the sale, is a condition of the power and essential to its rightful exercise.
Doubtless certain provisions of the revenue law are merely directory, but when the requisitions prescribed are intended for the protection of the citizen and to prevent a sacrifice of his property, such as, if disregarded, would injuriously affect his rights, they are to be treated as mandatory. They must be followed or the acts done will be invalid.
To the class of mandatory provisions belong requirements respecting notice and time and place of sale. Every notice which the statute provides for the benefit and protection of the tax-payer must be given with scrupulous observance of all its requisites. It cannot be shortened a single day, and if required to be given within a certain time or in any prescribed mode, it must be so given. The sale must be made at the very time and place provided by law for that purpose. The officer has no power to sell at any other time or place. Cooley on Taxation, 215, 218, 323, 334, 338.
In the case at bar the tax deed offered in evidence by the defendant showed that the sale for taxes was made by the officer on the 17th day of April, 1871; whereas, under the provisions of the revenue act, the sale was not authorized until after the 20th of April.
Section 2301 (General Laws) of the revenue act of 1870 reads as follows:
'The treasurer shall, before the 20th day of April in each year, make out a list of all lands and town lots subject to sale, describing such lands and town lots as the same are described on the tax roll, with an accompanying notice stating that so much of each tract of land or town lot described in said list as may be necessary for that purpose, will, on a day specified thereafter, and the next succeeding days, be sold,' etc., etc.
This section requires the treasurer before the 20th of April to designate a day thereafter for the sale. That the day designated for the sale in the notice would be after the date of the notice, would be of necessity, and the word thereafter would have no force or meaning if it referred to the date of the notice. It only serves a purpose as it expresses an intention on the part...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Matthews v. Blake
...The special six-year statute of limitations (R. S. 1899, Sec. 1861) runs from date of sale. (Mitchell v. Etter, 22 Ark. 178; Gomer v. Chaffee, 6 Colo. 314; McDongall v. Monlezum, 39 La. Ann., 1005; 27 L., 986.) It was not necessary that defendant show perfect title in himself, but that he w......
-
Nind v. Myers
...6 Kan. 311; Hall's Heirs v. Dodge, 18 Kan. 277; Hubbard v. Johnson, 9 Kan. 632. See, also, Millar v. Babcock, 29 Mich. 526; Gomer v. Chaffee, 6 Colo. 314; Moore Brown, 52 U.S. 414, 11 HOW 414, 13 L.Ed. 751; Redfield v. Parks, 132 U.S. 239, 10 S.Ct. 83, 33 L.Ed. 327; Walker v. Turner, 22 U.S......
-
De Laney v. City and County of Denver
...v. Johnson, 102 Colo. 203, 78 P.2d 373, 375; City and County of Denver v. Tax Research Bureau, 101 Colo. 140, 71 P.2d 809, 814; Gomer v. Chaffee, 6 Colo. 314, 317; 51 Am.Jur., Taxation, § 316, p. 15 Collector of Taxes of City of Boston v. Revere Building, 276 Mass. 576, 177 N. E. 577, 578; ......
-
Lake Canal Reservoir Co. v. Beethe, 08SC401.
...Id. at 272, 47 P. at 299. In drawing its line between void and voidable tax deeds, Crisman relied on our earlier case of Gomer v. Chaffee, 6 Colo. 314 (1882),8 which also focused on the authority and jurisdiction of the officer, not on the type of evidence necessary to demonstrate invalidit......
-
Chapter 30 - § 30.5 • TAX DEEDS (OTHER THAN TO COUNTIES)
...234 P. 1054 (Colo. 1925); Aspen-Western Corp. v. Bd. of County Comm'rs of Pitkin County, 661 P.2d 1175 (1982).[354] Gomer v. Chaffee, 6 Colo. 314 (1882) (sale held before statutory date); Whitehead v. Callahan, 402, 99 P. 57 (Colo. 1908).[355] Page v. Gillett, 107 P. 290 (Colo. 1910) ("This......
-
Chapter 30 - § 30.8 • TAX TITLES
...and distinguishing Mitchell v. Titus, 80 P. 1042 (Colo. 1905) and Williams v. Conroy, 83 P. 959 (Colo. 1905).[447] Gomer v. Chaffee, 6 Colo. 314 (1882); Dimpeel v. Beam, 91 P. 1107 (Colo. 1907); Page v. Gillett, 107 P. 290 (Colo. 1910); Hughes v. Webster, 122 P. 789 (Colo. 1912); Hochmuth v......