The rulings in
De Treville v. Smalls, 98 U. S.
517, and in
Keely v. Sanders, supra, p. 441,
reaffirmed.
This is a bill filed by McKinley and others in the Chancery
Court of Shelby County, Tennessee, and for the purposes of the
case, it was conceded that they were the owners of two lots of
ground near Memphis in that county prior to the tax sale thereof,
June 22 and June 25, 1864, under the act of Congress for the
collection of direct taxes in insurrectionary districts
Page 99 U. S. 497
within the United States and for other purposes and the acts
amending the same. Tax sale certificates in due form were granted
by the commissioners to Sherry, the purchaser at said sale. The
complainants alleged that the sales were null and void because the
said acts of Congress were unconstitutional; that the assessment
was excessive; that the commissioners put the act in force before
the military occupation of the whole of said county by the United
States; that the sales were not sufficiently advertised; and that
although the day fixed in the advertisement was June 13, 1865, the
lots were not in fact sold until the 22d and 25th of that month.
The bill prayed that the sales be set aside. The defendants
answered. The court passed a decree in conformity with the prayer
of the bill. The supreme court, on appeal, decreed that the tax
commissioners in making the sales did not follow the acts of
Congress in this, that the military authority of the United States
was not established throughout the county of Shelby when they
entered upon the discharge of the duties of their office; that the
sales were therefore void; that the certificates be cancelled and
held for naught; that the possession of the property be restored to
the complainants; and that an account of the rents and profits be
taken. Thereupon Sherry sued out this writ of error.
MR. JUSTICE STRONG delivered the opinion of the Court.
Most of the questions presented in this record received our
consideration in
Keely v. Sanders, supra, p.
99 U. S. 441, to
which we refer. We shall not repeat what was there said. The sole
ground upon which the supreme court of the state rested its decree
declaring the tax sales to be invalid was that the military
authority of the United States had not been established throughout
the County of Shelby when they took place, and therefore that the
lots were not then subject to sale according to the provisions of
the act of Congress. That this ground cannot be maintained we held
in the former case.
That both the lots were subject to the tax and that it had not
been paid or they redeemed is not controverted. It is also in
evidence, and not denied, that the commissioners gave a
Page 99 U. S. 498
certificate of sale of each of the lots to Sherry, the
purchaser. What the effect of that certificate is we determined in
Keely v. Sanders, as also in
De Treville v.
Smalls, 98 U. S. 517. If it
be suggested (though it has not been during the argument) that the
sale of lot 32 was of a different lot from that claimed by the
complainants, it may be replied that the suggestion is in conflict
with the proof.
It is true it was mentioned as "part of Manly tract," which was
an obvious mistake that could have misled no one, for there was no
such tract, and the remaining portion of the description clearly
identified the property. It was as follows: "Lot 32. . . . Six and
fifty-eight one-hundredths acres (6 58/100) assessed to heirs of
McKinley (the complainants) in 1860. Fifth civil district
(country)."
It is a fair presumption that the description was taken from the
state assessment of 1860, and followed it, since there is no
evidence to the contrary. The number and the designation of owners
are correct. No doubt the description would be sufficient in a
deed, since it afforded the owners the means of identification and
could not have misled them. Cooley, Const.Lim. 282.
The objection that the sales were not sufficiently advertised is
met in the cases we have heretofore decided. But in truth they were
advertised four weeks before they were made. The tax sales in the
district were advertised to commence on the 13th of June, and to
continue from day to day until all the lands not redeemed from
forfeiture were sold. The sales of the lots now in controversy were
made confessedly more than a month after they had been advertised
for sale.
Lorain v. Smith, 37 Ia. 67.
It is to be presumed that the sales were adjourned from day to
day until June 25. At most, there was but an irregularity which the
act of 1863 rendered ineffective to defeat the title of the
purchaser.
The judgment of the supreme court will be reversed and the
record remitted with instructions to order a dismissal of the bill,
and it is
So ordered.
MR. JUSTICE FIELD dissented.
