Ronkendorff v. Taylor's Lessee
Annotate this Case
29 U.S. 349 (1830)
U.S. Supreme Court
Ronkendorff v. Taylor's Lessee, 29 U.S. 4 Pet. 349 349 (1830)
Ronkendorff v. Taylor's Lessee
29 U.S. (4 Pet.) 349
The official tax books of the Corporation of Washington, made up by the register from the original returns or lists of the assessors, laid before the Court of Appeals, he being empowered by the ordinances of the corporation to correct the valuations made by the assessors, are evidence, and it is not required that the assessor's original lists shall be produced in evidence to prove the assessment of the taxes on real estate in the City of Washington.
In an ex parte proceeding, as a sale of land for taxes under a special authority, great strictness is required. To divest an individual of his property against his consent, every substantial requisite of the law must be complied with. No presumption can be raised in behalf of a collector who sells real estate for taxes to cure any radical defect in his proceedings, and the proof of regularity devolves upon the person who claims under the collector's sale.
Proof of the regular appointment of the assessors is not necessary. They acted under the authority of the corporation, and the highest evidence of this fact is the sanction given to their returns.
The act of Congress under which the lot in the City of Washington in controversy was sold required that public notice of the time and place of sale of lots, the property of nonresidents, should be given by advertising "once a week" in some newspaper in the city for three months. Notice of the sale of the lot in controversy was published for three months, but in the course of that period, eleven days at one time, at another ten days, and at another eight days transpired, in succeeding weeks between the insertions of the advertisement in the newspapers. "A week" is a definite period of time, commencing on Sunday and ending on Saturday. The notice was published Monday, January 6, and was omitted until Saturday, January 18, leaving an interval of eleven days. Still the publication on Saturday was within the week preceding the notice of the 6th, and this was sufficient. It would be a most rigid construction of the act of Congress, justified neither by its spirit nor its language, to say that this notice must be published on any particular day of a week. If published once a week for three months, the law is complied with and its object effectuated.
No doubt can exist that a part of a lot may be sold for taxes, where they have accrued on such part.
The lot on which the taxes were assessed belonged to two persons as tenants in common. The assessment was made by a valuation of each half of the lot. To make a sale of the interest of one tenant in common for unpaid taxes valid, it need not extend to the interest of both claimants; one having paid his tax, the interest of the other may well be sold for the balance.
The advertisement purported to sell "half of lot No. 4, in square No. 491," and the other half was advertised in the same manner, as belonging to the other tenant in common. This was not a sufficient advertisement, and a sale made under the same was void.
It is not sufficient that in an advertisement of land for sale for unpaid taxes, such
a description is given as would enable the person desirous of purchasing to ascertain the situation of the property by inquiry, nor if the purchaser at the sale had been informed of every fact necessary to enable him to fix a value upon the property would the sale be valid unless the same information had been communicated to the public in the notice.
The tenth section of the act of Congress provides that real property in Washington on which two or more years' taxes shall be due and unpaid may be sold, &c. In this section a distinction is made between a general and a special tax. Property may be sold to pay the former as soon as two years' taxes shall be due, but to pay the latter, property cannot be sold until the expiration of two years after the second year's tax becomes due. The taxes for which the property in controversy was sold became due, by the ordinance of the corporation, on 1f January, 1821 and 1822. The special tax for paving was charged against the lot in 1820, and became due on 1 January, 1821, but the ground on which it was assessed was not liable to be sold for the tax until 1 January, 1823. The first notice of the sale was given on 6 December, 1822, nearly a month before the lot was liable to be sold for the special tax of 1820. Held that the whole period should have elapsed which was necessary to render the lot liable to be sold for the special tax before the advertisement was published.
This was an ejectment brought by the defendant in error in the circuit court for the recovery of an undivided moiety of a lot of ground in the City of Washington, No. 4, in square No. 491.
The lessor of the plaintiff in the ejectment claimed to be entitled to the lot of ground as tenant in common with the heirs at law of Henry Toland, deceased, and on 10 March, 1823, the half of the lot so held by the lessor of the plaintiff was set up and exposed to public sale, as assessed to James N. Taylor, for taxes due to the Corporation of Washington for the years 1820 and 1821, amounting, in the whole, including the expenses of the sale, to the sum of $47.91, and Henry T. Weightman became the purchaser of the same. Mary Ronkendorff, the plaintiff in error, holds as lessee under the purchase at the tax sale.
In the circuit, the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff in the ejectment, upon which judgment for his unexpired term in an undivided moiety of the lot as tenant in common was rendered in his favor under the instructions of the court, to which several exceptions were taken.
The plaintiff in the circuit court made out his title under the commissioners of the City of Washington by regular conveyances to himself and Henry Toland deceased, and it was agreed that the plaintiff's lessee and Toland's heirs were under the same seized in fee as tenants in common of the premises before the sale of the half lot for taxes.
The defendant proved the assessment of the taxes on the lot by the production of the regular evidence, and that the taxes were assessed and the assessments were entered in the tax books according to the forms usually pursued and authorized under the charter and ordinances of the Corporation of Washington.
In the tax book of 1820, the assessment of lot No. 4, in square No. 491, appears arranged in columns in the established and accustomed forms, in which are placed the name and residence of the owner of the property; the number of the square; the number of the lot; its contents in square feet; the rate of assessment; the valuation; the valuation of the improvements; and the amount of the tax. The lot in controversy was entered in the tax book of 1820 thus:
It was also proved on the part of the defendant in the ejectment that the persons appointed to take the value of the property liable to assessments for taxes in the City of Washington usually perform the duty in October in each
year and make out annual lists of the same and of its assessed value, which, after being laid before the board of appeal empowered to correct the valuations, are returned to the register of the corporation with the corrections, if any, in whose custody and office the original books containing such lists and valuations are preserved, and the register, by the authority of the corporation, then proceeds to digest the tax books, year by year, in the form described, and transfers into such tax books from the original assessment books so returned by the assessors through the board of appeal, the lists of the several species, descriptions, and parcels of property on which such taxes are imposed and the assessed valuation of the same, as corrected by the board of appeal, extending in the proper column prepared for the purpose the amount of the taxes imposed upon the same respectively, which tax books, given in evidence by the defendant, were so made up and arranged by the register in the years 1820 and 1821 respectively the general taxes therein respectively assessed becoming due and payable according to the laws of the corporation on the first day of January of each year then next ensuing -- that is to say, the general tax (exclusive of the special tax for paving) for the year 1820, on 1 January, 1821; and that for the year 1821 on 1 January, 1822.
The court, on the motion of the plaintiff, instructed the jury that the tax books so given in evidence by the defendant were not competent evidence to prove the assessments of the lot for the years 1820 and 1821 unless the defendant first proved the regular appointment and authority of the assessors whose books and returns were used in making up and arranging the tax books as aforesaid, and also produced the original books so returned by the assessors, through the board of appeal, in each year respectively, to which opinion and instruction of the court the defendant in the circuit court excepted.
It was further proved on the part of the defendant that the collector of the taxes imposed by the corporation in third and fourth wards, who was authorized to advertise and sell all property in those wards liable to be sold by taxes, on Monday,
6 December in the year 1822, the taxes on the lot in controversy being unpaid, caused to be inserted in the national Intelligencer, the following advertisement:
"Will be sold, at public sale, on Monday 10 March next, at 10 o'clock, A.M. at the city Hall, the following described property, to satisfy the Corporation of Washington City for taxes due thereon up to the year 1821 inclusive, with costs and charges, unless previously paid to the subscriber, to-wit, [and amongst others are the following]"
This advertisement was repeated, and republished, by the direction of the collector, on the several days following:
Friday, December 6, 1822 -- Saturday, December 14, 1822 -- Monday, December 16, 1822 -- Tuesday, December 17, 1822 -- Wednesday, December 25, 1822 -- Saturday, January 4, 1823 -- Monday, January 6, 1823 -- Saturday, January 18, 1823 -- Tuesday, January 21, 1823 -- Saturday, February 1, 1823 -- Tuesday, February 4, 1823 -- Thursday, February 6, 1823 -- Saturday, February 8, 1823 -- Tuesday, February 11, 1823 -- Wednesday, February 12, 1823 -- Thursday, February 13, 1823 -- Friday, February 14, 1823 -- Saturday, February 15, 1823 -- Monday, February 17, 1823 -- Tuesday, February 18, 1823 -- Wednesday, February 19, 1823 -- Saturday, March 4, 1823 -- Monday, March 3, 1823 -- Tuesday, March 4, 1823 -- Wednesday, March 5, 1823 -- Monday, March 10, 1823.
The tenth section of the Act of Congress of 15 May, 1820, "to incorporate the inhabitants of the City of Washington, and to repeal all other acts heretofore passed," requires that real estate upon which two years' taxes are unpaid and in arrear shall be advertised "once a week" for three months.
In pursuance of his authority and duty, and according to the tenor of the advertisement, the collector, on 10
March, 1823, set up at public sale one-half of the lot No. 4, in square No. 491, and the same having been purchased by Henry T. Weightman, he paid the amount of the purchase money on the 11th of March, 1823, to the collector, who thereupon executed and delivered to him a certificate under his hand, and executed in the presence of a witness; stating, that
"At a sale made by me, as collector of taxes for the Third and Fourth Wards of the City of Washington, on 10 March, 1823, after due notice given as required by the acts of the corporation of said city, I set up and exposed to public sale half of lot No. 4, in square No. 491, assessed to James N. Taylor, for taxes due the said corporation on the same for the years 1820 and 1821, amounting in the whole, including the expenses of sale, to the sum of $47.91, when a certain Henry T. Weightman, being the highest bidder, became the purchaser thereof, at and for the sum of $47.91, the receipt of $47.91 is hereby acknowledged, subject however to redemption as provided for by law."
The collector made a return of the sale in the following form:
Mr. Weightman entered upon the half lot so sold to him, and was possessed thereof more than two years after the day of sale; and afterwards, on 5 October, 1826, received in due form a conveyance in fee simple of the said half lot, which deed was duly recorded, the plaintiff's lessor, James N. Taylor, or any person for him or in his behalf, or any person whatever not having at any time paid or in any manner tendered to Mr. Weightman, or deposited in the hands of the mayor or other officer of the corporation the money paid to the collector, or any part thereof.
The court, on the motion of the plaintiff, instructed the jury that the advertisement of the property was defective and illegal in the several instances and particulars following, to-wit:
1. That, being published and republished as aforesaid, on the several days aforesaid, from 6 December, 1822 to 17 March, 1823, both inclusive, was not an advertisement "once a week" for three months within the meaning of the tenth section of the Act of Congress passed on 15 May, 1820, "to incorporate the inhabitants of the City of Washington, and to repeal all acts heretofore passed for that purpose."
2. That the said corporation, or its collector of taxes acting under its authority, was not competent to advertise and sell any part of the said lot No. 4, in square No. 491, less than the entire lot, for the taxes so assessed on the same and due to the said corporation.
3. That the entire lot should have been assessed to the two tenants in common, Taylor and Toland; and accordingly advertised and sold, as assessed to them.
4. That the said advertisement did not sufficiently designate what half of the said lot was charged with the said taxes, and was to be sold for the same, and did not purport to be an advertisement of an undivided moiety of the same for sale.
5. That the said corporation or its said collector had no power or authority to advertise the said lot for sale till the last of the two years' taxes, for which the same was advertised for sale, had remained unpaid and in arrears for two years.
6. That the said advertisement does not purport to advertise the said lot for two years' taxes unpaid and in arrears.
7. That the said property so attempted to be sold was not described with sufficient certainty either in the advertisement or at the sale.
For which several defects in the process of the assessment, advertisement, and sale of the said lot the said sale is illegal and void.
The defendant excepted to all these instructions and opinions of the court, and prosecuted this writ of error.
Disclaimer: Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.