Margraff v. Cunningham's Heirs

Bartol, O. J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This is an appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Garrett County, setting aside a sale of lands made and reported by the appellant, Collector of Taxes. It appears by the record that in the year 1878, several tracts or parcels of land in Garr.ett County, were assessed as the property of James Cunningham’s heirs, as follows : “ Cheviot Dale,” 4036 acres, assessed at $10,090 00 “ Hunting Ridge,” 116 “ “ “ 290 00 “ Mill Seat,” 7 “ “ IT 50 Half-interest in Lot No. —, unknown, 100 acres, assessed at........................... 125 00 Buildings “ “ ........................... 100 00 $10,622 50 The amount of State and County taxes thereon for the year 1878, was $137.03. In the year 1879, the same property was assessed at $8027.50, and the amount of State and County taxes thereon for that year, was $88.30.

These taxes being in arrear, the appellant, as collector, after taking the preliminary steps required by the Act of 1874:, oh. 483, secs. 48 and 49, sold the whole of the three tracts or parcels of land above named, viz., “ Cheviot Dale,” containing '4036 acres, “Hunting Ridge,” containing 116 acres, and “ Mill Seat,” containing 7 acres, for the sum of $301, and reported the sale, together with his whole proceeding to the Circuit Court, as required by ⁵⁸⁷ sec. 51, of ihe Act of 1874. The Circuit Court set the sale aside, “ because the collector sold several thousand acres of land for two or three hundred dollars of taxes due thereon, instead of laying off a reasonable quantity of said lands, and selling the same for something like an approximate value.” And in this, we think the Circuit Court was entirely right. Art. 81 of the Code, alter providing for the seizure and sale of lands by a collector lor taxes, expressly provided in section 60, that “ Nothing contained in the last preceding section shall authorize any collector to sell more of any tract of land thau may prove sufficient to discharge the taxes and legal charges thereon due ; or to sell more of any lot of ground in any town or city, than may he sufficient to discharge the taxes and charges thereon due, unless the County Commissioners, or Appeal Tax Court, shall he of opinion that such lot will not admit of division without material injury to the owners thereof, and shall previously direct the collector to make sale thereof to the extent of the ground sold; and unless an entry of such authority to such collector he previously made upon the minutes of the proceedings of such Commissioners, or Appeal Tax Court.” By the Act of 1874, ch. 483, Article 81 was repealed, and section 60 was not re-enacted, and from this it has been argued by appellant’s counsel, that there is no obligation on the part of the collector to sell only a part of a tract of land, where a part would be sufficient to pay the taxes in arrear, and that he has no power or authority to have a portion laid off for that purpose, and we have been referred to “ The Matter of the Tax-sale of Lot No. 172.” 42 Md., 196 . In that case it was said, (p. 202,) “that sec. 60, of Article 81, could not apply to any future sale, as it has been repealed by the Act of 1874, ch. 383.” It must not he inferred from this expression, that the power of the collector to sell land for taxes, is unlimited ⁵⁸⁸ as to quantity.

On the contrary, his duty is to sell no-more than is reasonably sufficient to pay the taxes and charges thereon, where a division is practicable without injury.- In Dyer vs. Boswell, 39 Md., 471 , it was said