Lambertson et al. v. Hogan et al.

• Decision Date: 01 January 1857
• Parties: LAMBERTSON & McCLELLAND v. HOGAN et al.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

2 Pa. 22

LAMBERTSON & McCLELLAND v. HOGAN et al.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

ERROR to the Common Pleas of Venango county.

Dennison, for the plaintiffs in error, argued that these acts were remedial, and intended to explain the statute which has been construed in 2 Watts & Serg. 107.

Pearson, contrà.—Such a construction would make the act most iniquitous, if not unconstitutional, for the title was vested, and this would have the effect of putting a charge on one who was in no default. 5 Watts, 350; 2 Watts & Serg. 107; 4 Serg. & Rawle, 401; 6 Bin. 118; 2 Gall. 105; 3 Bin. 356; 4 Watts & Serg. 223.

ROGERS, J.

A defendant in ejectment, claiming title under a treasurer's sale for the payment of taxes, is not entitled to recover compensation for the value of his improvements, if his title be defeated, on the ground that the land was not unseated at the time the taxes were assessed upon it, and for payment of which it was sold. Nor is a subsequent purchaser in any better situation than the vendee of the treasurer. The point was ruled on the impregnable ground, that the tract being seated, the treasurer has no authority to sell, and, consequently, the title of the purchaser was null and void for want of jurisdiction. Unseated land alone is liable to be sold for payment of taxes. Taxes on seated tracts, and other species of property, are personal charges against the owner. This principle was ruled in three cases, Chew v. Young, McCall v. Lanmer, McKee v. Lambertin, reported in 2 Watts & Serg. 107, and would be decisive of this case, but for two acts of the legislature, one dated the 12th April, 1842, the other, the 11th March, 1843, which it is supposed alters the situation of the parties. This renders it necessary to investigate the application of these acts to the case in hand. The latter act (which it is most convenient to examine first) is entitled, "An act to repeal the Nicholson Court of Pleas, and to release the lien of the Commonwealth on the estate of John Nicholson, deceased." In the second section, the provisoes in the 20th section of the supplement to the act, (the act first cited,) authorizing the governor to incorporate the Tioga Navigation Company, passed the 12th April, 1842, are repealed, and the provisions of the 20th section of the same act as to a valuation for improvements, are applied to all cases of improvements made bonâ fide under a tax title. Now, although it is not easy to comprehend how a person can act bonâ fide who improves land, knowing at the time the worthlessness of the title under which he claims, we are spared that question, as it is clear the repealing clause only applies to land formerly belonging to John Nicholson and Peter Baynton. There are reasons for the repeal of those clauses, peculiar to the estates held under those titles, which cannot affect seated lands sold under treasurer's sales, on which improvements have been made, the purchaser being aware that the tax title was not only defective in form, but absolutely null and void. Surely the legislature, whatever may have been the covert design of the draftsmen of the bill, could not intend to deprive minors of the protection afforded their interests by one of the provisions of the act which it is said is repealed. This act was a statute of repose, with the special object of putting at rest certain questions which have vexed the holders of these lands, and the legislature cannot, by a fair construction, be said to have had any thing else in view. It would be dangerous, although general words may be used to extend an act passed beyond the provisions of the statute, as it may have the effect of unsettling a general system, by so construing expressions introduced carelessly, or perhaps for a sinister purpose, into a bill designed to regulate a particular class of cases only. Throwing, therefore, this act out of view, we must next inquire as to the construction of the act of the 12th April, 1842. Has the act any application to this case? It will greatly aid us in arriving at a proper conclusion, to consider the effect of the construction insisted on by the defendant's counsel. Assume whatever disguise it may, the result is, (if we adopt their reading of the statute,) that the legislature has undertaken, without the slightest compensation, to take the property of A. and give it to B. Now, it has been ruled on grounds which cannot be gainsaid, that the government cannot take the property of one citizen for the mere purpose of transferring it to another, even for a full compensation, where the public were not interested in such transfer; and...