OCR Text |
Show te Tax Deed . Act Upheld By U. S. a's much discussed tax deed is given final approval by the 1 States Supreme court Mon-f) Mon-f) this week. This decision will 0 the long questioned act and it possible for counties to """" t clear title to property sold for gC after the fourth year of de-ncy. de-ncy. case on which the final alue. m was made was that 4 ft eorge S. Ingraham, Sher- 1 M Green, Edward P. Mc- it et al vs. Henry Hanson, in- ""j title to a tract of land in d county, Utah, acquired by n from the county at tax sale. L n brought suit in the state t court to quiet his title, al-that al-that the general taxes against ad for 1926 had not been paid lat as a result a tax deed of jperty was taken by the council coun-cil had conveyed the land to m land lay within the Millard drainage district No. 3 Ap-m Ap-m s, owners of the bonds of the """ge district, set up that the were payable by annual ass- ,ts and levy of drainage taxes jjjjj the statutes of Utah in force the bonds were sold. They ,rj ied also that the provision of .tute became part of the ob- 2 l of their bonds and required hen general taxes and drain- mpres became delinquent there be but one notice of sale and e certificate of sale and tax i n which all general taxes be included. Supreme court ruled that the laws of Utah "taxes for governmental purposes are unt to all other demands the property to which the i attaches. 01 te ruling on the same ques-I ques-I h s week was handed down by inmaiHuffaker, assistant attorney he ruled that neither a f county commissioners nor e tax commission may com- 0 delinquent taxes after the i of a tax deed, '.nts out that after a tax deed i issued there are no taxes iwnMiromise, because the taking cd by the county transfers UfHcrship of the property to the and wipes out all previous It is the delinquent taxes institute the consideration Indeed. J-"-L;o holds that if delinquent p e paid prior to the issuance uditor's tax deed, a certifi-redemption certifi-redemption should be given, ley are not paid until after mce of the tax deed then a m deed should be given. GAR i must be some definite time '. It. Huffaker said, "where-n "where-n be determined when the ' redemption expires. If the er Tteof the tax deed does not cut nure period of redemption, then eed is not what it purports 'IT . The difficulty arises in ter by reason of section 80-t 80-t .-which provides that any 'ICS ir the period of redemption I red and before the May sale, may be redeemed by paying tcrest, costs, etc. my opinion that the legis- rK sed the word 'redemption' gggense of a right to repur-ji repur-ji other words, the taxpayer M:r January 1, and if a tax been issued, and before the t repurchase his property S i county upon the payment t 3 a mtercst' csts, etc." i ilffakor rulcd further that f Ulelinqiipnt.. taxes, but the 'nmst be made prior to the f of the tax deed. J: O |