Ladd v. Dickey

• Citation: 24 A. 813,84 Me. 190
• Parties: LADD v. DICKEY.
• Decision Date: 14 January 1892
• Court: Supreme Judicial Court of Maine (US)

24 A. 813

84 Me. 190

LADD

v. DICKEY.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

Jan. 14, 1892.

(Official.)

Report from supreme judicial court, Waldo county.

Action of forcible entry and detainer by Isabella A. Ladd against Melvina Dickey. On report. Judgment for defendant.

Thompson & Dunton, for plaintiff.

W. T. C. Ruanells, for defendant.

LIBBEY, J. The plaintiff's title depends upon the validity of two tax sales, one in December, 1881, on the tax assessed to Isaac George, the other made in June, 1885, on the tax assessed to the defendant. The sales were made to the inhabitants of the town of Stockton, and the plaintiff claims under a deed from that town. The burden of proof is upon the plaintiff to show that in making these sales, or at least one of them, all the requirements of law were complied with by the collector. We think she has failed to do so.

The deeds from the collector relied on are not sufficient to make out a prima, facie case of title. They do not show that the law was complied with. The recitals in a collector's deed are not evidence of the facts recited. Libby v. Mayberry, 80 Me. 137, 13 Atl. Rep. 577.

It does not appear that nine months had elapsed before the collector gave notice of sale. His recital that nine months had elapsed is not sufficient. He should state the time when he gave notice. Nor is his recital that he gave the notice at least six weeks before the time of sale sufficient. He should state when he gave the notice. Nor is it sufficient for him to recite in his deed that he posted up the notices where warrants for town meetings are required to be posted. He should state where he posted them up. Nor does it appear to whom he gave the 10 days' written notice of the time and place of sale, and the amount of tax due, as the owner or occupant of the premises. His recital that he gave it at least 10 days before the sale, to a person who was the owner or occupant, is not sufficient evidence of the fact.

But the more substantial objection to the sale is, we think, that he recites in his deed that he sold the premises named to the inhabitants of the town of Stockton as a whole, they being the highest bidders therefor. It should appear that he exposed for sale and sought offers for a fractional part of said premises sufficient to pay the tax and legal charges, and that he could obtain no bid therefor. It is not sufficient for him to say that it was necessary to sell the whole amount so assessed and advertised, no person offering to pay the tax and legal charges for a smaller fractional part of said real estate. It must appear...