Margraff v. Cunningham's Heirs

• Decision Date: 28 February 1882
• Citation: 57 Md. 585
• Parties: EDWARD MARGRAFF, Collector v. JAMES CUNNINGHAM'S HEIRS.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

57 Md. 585

EDWARD MARGRAFF, Collector v. JAMES CUNNINGHAM'S HEIRS.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

February 28, 1882

APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Garrett County.

The case is stated in the opinion of the Court.

The cause was submitted to BARTOL, C.J., MILLER, ROBINSON, IRVING and RITCHIE, J.

Thomas J. Peddicord, and H. Wheeler Combs for the appellant.

Gilmor S. Hamill, for the appellees.

BARTOL C.J., delivered the opinion of the Court.

This is an appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Garrett County, setting aside a sale of lands made and reported by the appellant, Collector of Taxes. It appears by the record that in the year 1878, several tracts or parcels of land in Garrett County, were assessed as the property of James Cunningham's heirs, as follows:

"Cheviot Dale," 4036 acres, assessed at	$10,090 00
Hunting Ridge," 116 acres, assessed at ...........................	290 00
Mill Seat," 7 acres, assessed at ..................................	17 50
Half-interest in Lot No. --, unknown, 100 acres, assessed at ......	125 00
Buildings assessed at .............................................	100 00
	----------
	$10,622 50

The amount of State and County taxes thereon for the year 1878, was $137.03.

In the year 1879, the same property was assessed at $8027.50, and the amount of State and County taxes thereon for that year, was $88.30.

These taxes being in arrear, the appellant, as collector, after taking the preliminary steps required by the Act of 1874, ch. 483, secs. 48 and 49, sold the whole of the three tracts or parcels of land above named, viz., "Cheviot Dale," containing 4036 acres, "Hunting Ridge," containing 116 acres, and "Mill Seat," containing 7 acres, for the sum of $301, and reported the sale, together with his whole proceeding to the Circuit Court, as required by sec. 51, of the Act of 1874. The Circuit Court set the sale aside, "because the collector sold several thousand acres of land for two or three hundred dollars of taxes due thereon, instead of laying off a reasonable quantity of said lands, and selling the same for something like an approximate value." And in this, we think the Circuit Court was entirely right.

Art. 81 of the Code, after providing for the seizure and sale of lands by a collector for taxes, expressly provided in section 60, that "Nothing contained in the last preceding section shall authorize any collector to sell more of any tract of land than may prove sufficient to discharge the taxes and legal charges thereon due; or to sell more of any lot of ground in any town or city, than may be sufficient to discharge the taxes and charges thereon due, unless the County Commissioners, or Appeal Tax Court, shall be of opinion that such lot will not admit of division without material injury to the owners thereof, and shall previously direct the collector to make sale thereof to the extent of the ground sold; and unless an entry of such authority to such collector be previously made upon the minutes of the proceedings of such Commissioners, or Appeal Tax Court."

By the Act of 1874, ch. 483, Article 81 was repealed, and section 60 was not re-enacted, and from this it has been argued by appellant's counsel, that there is no obligation on the part of the collector to sell only a part of a tract of land, where a part would be sufficient to pay the taxes in arrear, and that he has no power or authority to have a portion laid off for that purpose, and we have been referred to " The Matter of the Tax-sale of Lot No. 172." 42 Md., 196. In that case it was said, (p. 202,) "that sec. 60, of Article 81, could not apply to any future sale, as it has been repealed by the Act of 1874, ch. 383."

It must not be inferred from this expression, that the power of the collector to sell land for taxes, is unlimited as to quantity. On the contrary, his duty is to sell no more than is reasonably sufficient to pay the taxes and charges thereon, where a division is practicable without injury.

In Dyer vs. Boswell, 39 Md., 471, it was said that Art. 81, sec. 60, of the Code "merely asserts a general principle, which is applicable to sales made by sheriffs and collectors, and has been often enforced upon grounds of equity and reason, which forbid such officers from selling in mass a whole tract of land, to pay a small sum of money, when the sale of one or two acres would be sufficient." On this subject, we refer also to Blackwell on Tax...