Moore v. Byrd

• Decision Date: 25 February 1896
• Citation: 118 N.C. 688,23 S.E. 968
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: MOORE v. BYRD.

23 S.E. 968

118 N.C. 688

MOORE

v.BYRD.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Feb. 25, 1896.

Constitutional Law —Taxation — Ejectment — Evidence of Title—Tax Deed.

1. Acts 1895, c. 119, § 66 (Acts 1887, c. 137, § 74), providing, in actions to recover land on title based on a tax deed, that the person claiming title adverse to the deed shall be required to prove, in order to defeat the tax title, either that the property was not subject to taxation for the year named in the deed, or that the taxes were paid, and prohibiting persons from questioning the title acquired by the tax without tirst show ing that he, or the persons under whom he claims, had title to the laud at the time of the sale, and that all taxes had \pen paid, is constitutional

& Since Acts 1895. c. 119, § 66 (Acts 1887, c. 137, § 74), makes tax deeds prima facie evidence of title, plaintiff in ejectment, in the absence of evidence of defendant's title, is entitled to recover merely on proof of a tax deed for the land.

Appeal from superior court, Yancey county; Timberlake, Judge.

Action by W. M. Moore against John C. Byrd. There was a judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

E. J. Justice, for appellee.

CLARK, J. The real estate in controversy was sold for nonpayment of taxes, as the property of S. M. Riddle, and after the lapse of one year, it not being redeemed, the sheriff executed a deed to the purchaser, who is the plaintiff herein. This is an action of ejectment for the premises, brought against the defendant in possession, who was not shown to be holding under Riddle or in privity with him. The plaintiff introduced the sheriff's deed and evidence as to rents and profits. The defendant introduced no evidence, and the court directed a verdict for the defendant.

The difficulty of obtaining a good title under a sale for nonpayment of taxes, by reason of the many refinements and technicalities formerly existing, was such that the collection of taxes upon real estate practically could not be enforced, unless the owner thereof would volunteer to pay them; and the legislature, in 1885 (chapter 238), appointed a tax commission to report a more stringent law by which the collection of taxes could be more generally and impartially enforced, and the report of this commission, with some modifications, was adopted into chapter 137, Acts 1887, and its provisions have been re-enacted by each succeeding legislature, with slight change, if any, and are now found in chapter 119, Acts 1895. One of these provisions, to be found in section 66 of this act of 1895 (being section 74 of the aforesaid act of 1887), is as follows: "And in all controversies and suits involving the title of real property claimed and held under and by virtue of a deed made substantially as aforesaid by the sheriff, the person claiming title adverse to the title conveyed by such deed shall be required to prove, in order to defeat the said title, either that the said property was not subject to taxation for the year or years named in the deed, or that the taxes had been paid before the sale, * * * but no person shall be permitted to question the title acquired by the sheriffi's deed without first showing that he or the person...