State v. Snyder
| Decision Date | 22 December 1908 |
| Citation | 63 S.E. 385,64 W.Va. 659 |
| Parties | STATE v. SNYDER et al. |
| Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
The state is estopped by section 29 of chapter 31 of the Code of 1899 (Code 1906, § 888), from proceeding to sell, as forfeited for non-entry in the name of the former owner, land conveyed by a sheriff to a purchaser, pursuant to a sale thereof for nonpayment of taxes thereon, though the deed because of defects in the sale proceeding, is void as to the former owner and fails to vest his title in the grantee therein.
[Ed Note.-For other cases, see Taxation, Cent. Dig. § 1556; Dec Dig. § 789. [*] ]
By making such deed conclusive evidence against all persons except the former owner, his heirs and assigns, and those who might have redeemed the land within one year after the date of the sale, the statute works, by estoppel, a release grant, or transfer of the title of the former owner to the grantee therein, upon the forfeiture of such title for failure of the former owner to keep the land taxed in his name and the taxes thereon paid for five successive years.
[Ed Note.-For other cases, see Taxation, Cent. Dig. § 1556; Dec. Dig. § 789. [*] ]
Though the statute in question does not mention the state by name as being one of the persons concluded by such deed, it must be construed as including the state in said class, so as to make it harmonize with the principles and public policy, made manifest by the organic, statutory, and judicial system of law of this state, relating to taxation of land and the settlement of land titles, as an incident of the exercise of the power of taxation.
[Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Taxation, Cent. Dig. § 1556; Dec. Dig. § 789. [*] ]
The express saving in said section 29, in favor of the state, counties, districts, school districts, and municipal corporations, does not confer upon the state power to set aside a tax deed, for the purpose of availing herself of a forfeiture of the former owner's title, but only to proceed, notwithstanding the defective deed, to enforce any lien she may have on the land for prior taxes thereon, treating it, not as her land, but as the land of the tax-deed grantee, or the former owner, for such purpose and to such extent.
[Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Taxation, Dec. Dig. § 789. [*]]
A statute should be so read and applied as to make it accord with the spirit, purposes, and objects of the general system of law of which it is intended to form a part; it being presumed that the legislators who drafted and passed it were familiar with all existing law applicable to the subject-matter, whether constitutional, statutory, or common, and intended the statute to harmonize completely with the same and aid in the effectuation of the general purpose and design thereof, if its terms are consistent therewith.
[Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Statutes, Cent. Dig. § 303; Dec. Dig. § 225. [*] ]
Appeal from Circuit Court, Randolph County.
Bill by the State against Henry Snyder, Eli M. Upton, and others. Decree for Hutton, and the State and Henry Snyder and such others appeal. Affirmed.
C. H. Scott, E. D. Talbott, Jake Fisher, and Byron Clark, for appellants.
Lew Greynolds, for appellee.
POFFENBARGER, P.
Henry Snyder and others and the State of West Virginia complain on this appeal of a decree of the circuit court of Randolph county dismissing a bill in equity filed by said state, the object of which was to cause the sale of a tract of land containing 1,000 acres, situate in said county, as forfeited, in the name of William A. and Henry Snyder, to the state for non-entry by them for the purposes of taxation. Snyder and others, admitting the forfeiture, claimed the right to redeem, by payment of taxes and costs; but the court, deeming the title to be in one Eli M. Upton, another party to the suit, and all taxes to have been paid by him and his predecessors in title, so decided and dismissed the bill.
The material facts, disclosed by the record, are as follows: Henry Snyder and William Snyder, as assignees of William A. Snyder, obtained from the commonwealth of Virginia a grant of said tract of land by a patent, bearing date January 1, 1857. Its location is in Randolph county, but near the line between that county and Webster county, and, on the formation of the latter, in the year 1860, was supposed, owing to uncertainty as to the location of the county line, to be in Webster county, wherefore it was charged with taxes in said county for the years 1865 to 1869, inclusive, in the names of Henry and William Snyder, and, having been returned as delinquent for nonpayment of taxes, was sold in the year 1870 to T. F. Cherry, to whom a deed, conveying the same, in pursuance of said sale, was afterwards executed by James Woodzell, recorder of said county, and duly recorded. By reason of the destruction of the records of said county by fire, the date of said deed is unascertainable; but the substance of the record of said instrument was restored, by proceedings under section 17 of chapter 130 of the Code of 1899 (Code 1906, § 3939). Said Cherry conveyed the land to C. P. Dorr by a deed which was recorded in said county of Webster and likewise destroyed by a fire. Dorr and Elihu Hutton, by deed dated the 27th day of July, 1888, conveyed to J. B. Walker, William Porter, J. G. Lyttle, and W. A. Porter several tracts of land, aggregating, in quantity, 10,012 acres, among which was said 1,000-acre tract, described therein as having been surveyed for W. A. Snyder. The deed from Cherry to Dorr seems not to have been restored, but by deed bearing date January 18, 1892, the heirs of Cherry executed to William Porter and others, grantees of Dorr and Hutton, a deed confirming the conveyance from Cherry to Dorr. By deed dated the 24th day of April, 1894, Porter and others, grantees of Dorr and Hutton, conveyed said 10,012 acres of land to Marsenus S. Briggs, who, by deed dated January 4, 1897, conveyed
the same to Eli Upton.
In the meantime, January 14, 1882, George W. Yocum, commissioner of school lands for Randolph county, filed a report and petition in the circuit court of said county for the purpose of obtaining a sale of said 1,000-acre tract of land, as forfeited in the name of William and Henry Snyder for failure to have the same charged with taxes. In that proceeding, William and Henry Snyder, as well as W. A. Porter and others, filed their respective petitions, claiming the right to redeem. There was a reference to a commissioner and further proceedings in the manner then prescribed by the statute, resulting in a decree permitting the Snyders to pay the taxes on the land, and adjudicating, in their favor, a redemption thereof from forfeiture, so far as the title thereto had become vested in the state, On an appeal from that decree, this court reversed it, and the cause was remanded for further proceedings, as appears from the decision reported in 42 W.Va. 357, 26 S.E. 181. One of the reasons assigned for the reversal was the passage of chapter 24, p. 57 of the Acts of 1893, making very material alterations in the law relating to such proceedings, and requiring all suits and proceedings for the sale of forfeited, waste, and unappropriated and escheated lands, instituted since the 12th day of March, 1891, in which there had been no sale, to be discontinued and dismissed. No further proceedings seem to have been had in that cause. Presumably, it was dismissed, as this suit was instituted on the 3d day of November, 1899, and an amended bill, relating to the same lands, filed in 1901, making new parties, among whom were Porters, Lyttle, Walker, Dorr, Hutton, McGraw, Briggs, and Upton. On the 22d day of October 1901, Henry Snyder and others filed their answer to the bill and amended bill, and on the 5th day of May, 1904, an amended answer. Upton filed an answer by leave of the court before the commissioner to whom the cause was referred. On the 24th day of January, 1905, Upton filed a supplemental petition and answer, setting up an alleged adjudication in his favor, in another suit commenced by the state of West Virginia on the 6th day of March, 1900, against William A. Porter and others, for the purpose of selling, as forfeited lands, two tracts or parcels of land, in one of which was included said 1,000-acre tract. He alleged that, in said cause, he had filed a petition in October, 1901, claiming to be the owner of said tracts, and asked permission to redeem the same, and that such proceedings were had, upon said petition, that he was permitted to redeem said two tracts, one containing 1,000 acres, and the other 6,378 acres, of which last tract said 1,000 acres, claimed by Snyder and others, was a part. With his said supplemental petition and answer he exhibited the record in said last-mentioned cause. To said supplemental petition and answer, Snyder and others filed a special reply, denying that they were parties to said cause of State v. Porter and Others, and that they had any notice thereof or knew anything of it until the filing of said petition and answer: They further denied the jurisdiction of the court in said last-mentioned cause, as to said tract of 1,000 acres, because the same constituted the subject-matter of this suit which had been previously instituted and was open and undetermined at the time of the commencement of said suit against Porter and others. As further ground of denial of the alleged adjudication relied upon, they represent that the petition filed by Upton in the cause of State v. Porter and Others, as well as the bill filed therein, wholly failed to indicate in any manner that said 1,000 acres was in any way involved or included in said proceedings.
That the Snyder tract of land is included in the 10,012 acres...
To continue reading
Request your trial