Parker v. Rule Lessee

• Decision Date: 11 February 1815
• Citation: 9 Cranch 64,3 L.Ed. 658,13 U.S. 64
• Parties: PARKER v. RULE'S LESSEE
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

13 U.S. 64

9 Cranch 64

3 L.Ed. 658

PARKER v. RULE'S LESSEE.

Feb. 11, 1815

Absent. JOHNSON, J. and TODD, J.

ERROR to the Circuit Court of the district of West Tennessee,

in an action of ejectment.

The facts of the case were thus stated by the chief justice in delivering the opinion of the Court:

This was an ejectment brought by the Defendant in error in the Circuit Court of the United States for the district of West Tennessee. The Plaintiff below claimed under a patent regularly issued by the proper authority. The Defendant made title under a deed, from the collector of the district, reciting a sale of the said land as being forfeited by the non payment of taxes, and conveying the same to the purchaser. On the validity of this conveyance the whole case depends. At the trial the Defendant produced his deed, and also a general list of lands owned, possessed and occupied on the first day of October, 1798, in assessment district No. 12, in the state of Tennessee, corresponding with the collection district No. 8, returned to the office of the late supervisor of the revenue for the district of Tennessee by Edward Douglass, surveyor of the revenue for said assessment district, among which is the following: 'Grant John, reputed owner in Sumner county on the middle fork of Bledsoe's Creek, 640 acres of land subject to and included in the valuation valued at $2,560, no possessor, or occupant'. He also produced the tax list furnished by said surveyor to Thomas Martin, collector of the collection district No. 8, in which list said land is described in the same manner as in the said general list, excepting that the said John Grant is described as possessor or occupant of said 640 acres of land, and said land is included in the list of lands belonging to residents. He also produced the advertisements of the sale of the said lands, mentioned in the said deed to have been made in the Tennessee Gazette, in which said John Grant is mentioned only as reputed owner of said land, and proved, by a witness present at the sale, that the said Henry Bradford, for himself and Daniel Smith, became the purchaser of the said land; and that the said Daniel and Henry, before the execution of the said last mentioned deed, assigned their interest in the said land to the Defendant, Richard Parker. But it did not appear that the said collector had, at any time, caused a copy of the said list, with a statement of the amount of the tax, and a notification to pay the same, to be published for sixty days in four gazettes of the state, if there were so many pursuant to the last clause of the 11th section of the act of congress, entitled 'An act to lay and collect 'a direct tax within the United States,' vol. 4, p. 212. And thereupon the judge instructed the jury that the said sale made by said collector was unauthorized and void, because the said collector had not previously made said last mentioned publication, and because it appeared that the collector proceeded to collect the taxes due on the said land in the manner prescribed by law for collecting taxes due upon lands where the owner resides thereon, and not in the manner prescribed when the owners are non-residents and because there is a variance between the surveyor's books and the collector's list. The Defendant below excepted to this opinion of the judge, and a verdict and judgment being rendered against him, he has brought the same by writ of error into this Court.

JONES, for the Plaintiff in error.

There is only one question in this cause, viz: whether the collector, in making sale of the land under the 13th section of the act, (vol. 4, p. 213) was bound to publish for 60 days in 4 gazettes of the state, the copies of the lists of the lands taxable, &c. with a statement of the amount of the taxes due thereon, and a notification to pay the same in 30 days, as required by the 11th section of the same act.

We contend that this clause of the section applies only to unoccupied lands of unknown proprietors, and not merely to lands of non-residents. Grant, although a non-resident, was a known proprietor.

Such publication is only necessary in case of distress and sale of goods and chattels, which is the only remedy given by the 11th section. If the collector intended to levy the distress, then it was incumbent on him to make the publication. But when the legislature, by the 13th section, give the remedy by sale of the land itself, they make a different provision and require different notice of the sale, and do not refer to the provisions of the 11th section; all of which provisions relate only to the case of distress.

C. LEE, contra.

The deed from the collector must always recite all the facts necessary to make the title good. In this respect the deed is very defective.

The land appears to have belonged to a non-resident. If his residence was known, the law required that he should have personal notice: if not known, he must have presumptive notice by publication as the 11th section requires. It cannot be supposed that the law would require less notice to authorize a sale of the land, than a distress and sale of chattels. It cannot be supposed that the legislature meant to comprise all the pre-requisites of a sale of the land in the 13th section; for that section applies as well residents as to non-residents, any yet it requires no notice of the amount of the taxes nor a demand of payment before sale. It is rather to be presumed that the legislature meant that all the preceding requisites should be complied with.

JONES, in reply.

It is not necessary that the deed should recite any of the facts preceding the sale. They may all be proved by parol.

February 18th. Absent. JOHNSON, J. and TODD, J.

MARSHALL, Ch. J. after stating the facts of the case delivered the opinion...