State ex rel. Cunningham v. Romero
Decision Date | 22 September 1916 |
Docket Number | 1913. |
Parties | STATE EX REL. CUNNINGHAM ET AL. v. ROMERO, COUNTY TREASURER. |
Court | New Mexico Supreme Court |
On Motion for Rehearing, December 30, 1916.
Syllabus by the Court.
Chapter 78, Laws 1915, construed, and held, that the owner of property may redeem the same from a tax sale within three years from the date of the certificate by paying the amount paid at such sale, with interest at the rate of 1 per cent per month, together with any taxes which may have been paid upon the property by the purchaser of the tax certificate with interest at the same rate.
The provision of section 1, chapter 78, Laws 1915, which reads as follows, "Such sale of said certificates or duplicate certificates, or such redemption by the owner, shall release said property from the lien of all delinquent taxes penalties, interest and costs standing against the same at the date of such sale or redemption," operates to release the property from the lien of all such taxes penalties, interest, and costs upon the sale of the certificate.
Appeal from District Court, San Miguel County; Leahy, Judge.
Action by the State, on the relation of J. M. Cunningham and another, administrators of the estate of F. H. Pierce, for mandamus to Eugenio Romero, treasurer and ex officio collector of taxes of San Miguel County. From a judgment for relators, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Chas. W. G. Ward and C. A. Hunker, both of Las Vegas, and Thomas H. Gibson and Edwin Park, both of Denver, Colo., for appellant.
Charles A. Spiess and Herbert W. Clark, both of East Las Vegas, for appellees.
HANNA, J. (after stating the facts as above).
The only question for our determination is whether an owner of real estate which has been sold to the county for delinquent taxes for two or more years prior to April 1, 1915, may redeem the same by the payment of the amount for which the certificate of sale has been sold and assigned by the county to a third party, or whether such owner must pay the original amount for which the property was sold to the county.
It is the contention of appellant that the Glen Investment Company, the purchaser of the tax certificate in question, is entitled to receive not only the amount paid for the certificates, but also the penalties, interest, and costs which had accrued thereon, although such penalties, interest, and costs had not, in fact, been paid to the county by the purchaser of the certificates. The question is purely one of construction of our statutes, and there is no controversy over the fact that the sale of the property described in the certificates for delinquent taxes was made pursuant to the provisions of section 5498 of the Codification of 1915, which section provides:
By section 5500 it is provided that:
It is to be noted from the foregoing section that it was made the duty of the treasurer after the sale of any such duplicate tax certificates to mail a notice to the owner or agent of the property, informing him of the sale of such certificate, and giving him the name of the purchaser and the amount paid therefor, and advising him that unless he shall redeem within three years from the date of recording of said duplicate certificate, a deed will be executed and delivered to the purchaser or his assigns.
By section 5502, Code 1915, subsequently repealed, it was further provided that the treasurer should give the purchaser a certificate of sale containing a description of the property sold, stating the name of person or persons to whom the same was assessed, and the amount paid therefor, and that the property was sold for taxes subject to the right of the owner to redeem the property within three years by paying the amount paid at such sale, with interest thereon at the rate of 1 per cent. per month.
This latter section of the Codification of 1915 was amended by chapter 78 of the Laws of 1915; the amending act being an entire substitution for said section 5502, and reads as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial