Amos v. Abromaitis

Thomas, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This appeal is from a judgment of the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County, in an action in ejectment brought by the heirs at law of Isaac; Amos of William, deceased, against the appellee to recover possession of a farm in that county. The defendant filed a plea of not guilty, and the trial of the case in the Court below resulted in a verdict and judgment in favor of the defendant, from which the plaintiffs appealed. The plaintiffs offered in evidence several deeds for the property mentioned in the declaration, including the deeds to Isaac Amos of William, and then produced evidence tending to show that he died, intestate, in Harford County, Mary ²⁵⁸ land, on January 6th, 1877, seized and possessed of the property, and that the plaintiffs were his only heirs at law.

The defendant then offered in evidence the record of proceedings in a tax sale of the property, made in 1892 for the purpose of collecting taxes levied in 1890, on property assessed to Isaac Amos; the deed from the treasurer and collector of taxes to the purchaser at the tax salé, and the several successive deeds under which the defendant claimed. -All of this evidence was objected to by the plaintiffs, and was admitted by the Court subject to exception. At the conclusion of the defendant’s testimony, the plaintiffs filed a motion to strike out the evidence of the defendant referred to, but the Court below overruled the motion, and at the instance of the defendant granted a prayer directing a verdict for the defendant, to which rulings of the Court the plaintiffs excepted. The defense rests entirely upon the tax sale proceedings, and the question of their validity is the only important one in the case. We have said in the recent case of McMahon v. Crean, 109 Md. 652 , that a statute which requires a tax sale to be reported to and ratified by the Court, confers upon the Courts a special and limited jurisdiction, and that the order of confirmation “operates only to relieve the purchaser of the onus of proof, and tO' cast the onus of showing the illegality of the proceedings upon the party resisting the sale.” When the sale has been ratified this “Court will presume that the collector has discharged his duty, and no presumption will be invoked against the validity of the proceedings.

But where it appears, by the record, or by proofx that material and substantial provisions of the law have not been observed in making the sale, it will be treated as utterly null and void.” The provisions of the local law of Anne Arundel County, under which the sale in question was made, are found in the Code of Public Local Laws, 1888, Article 2. Section 229 provides that “It shall be the duty of the treasurer, during the month of March succeeding each levy, tounake out all tax ²⁵⁹ bills which have not been paid, in duplicate form, and to place the same in the hands of the several constables of the districts wherein the property assessed is located or the owners reside, to be delivered to the parties owning the same; and that each bilí so made out shall contain a notice that if the same be not paid on or before the first day of June next after the date of said bill, the property upon which the taxes may be owing will be levied upon and sold to enforce payment thereof; * * * the bills so made out shall be placed in the hands of the said constables on or before the first Monday of April after the date thereof, and one copy of such bill shall be delivered to the person or corporate institution against whom it is made out; or in the event of failure to find such person or taxpayer in the district, such tax bill shall bo left with the agent of such person or institution, or conspicuously posted on the property assessed, within thirty days after the receipt of the same; and the constable receiving such tax bills shall endorse upon one copy thereof the time and manner of service made, and shall return the same to the treasurer within twenty days after making such service.” Section 230 provides that “It shall be the duty of the treasurer to enforce the payment of all taxes remaining unpaid on the first day of June in the year succeeding that in which the same shall have been levied, by a levy, upon the real or personal property of the person or corporate institution so' neglecting to pay; provided, the last notice required in the preceding section shall have been given; * * * Whenever any levy is made, notice thereof, together with a copy of the bill of taxes due, interest and costs, including that of the 'levy, shall be delivered to the owner, if he be in possession of the property, or at his residence, if it be within the same district, or mailed to him, if his post-office address be known, and if not, then to be conspicuously posted on the premises, together with a notice that if the said bill for taxes, interest and costs be not paid within thirty days, the property levied upon will be sold at public sale.” Section 231 provides that a sale made by the treasurer shall be reported ²⁶⁰ to the Circuit Court for said county; that the same shall be ratified by the Court if the proceedings are regular, and that such sale shall not be set aside if the provisions of the law shall appear to have been substantially complied with, &e. It appears from the report of sale made by the treasurer, being a part of the record of said proceedings