Opinion
No. 30671.
May 29, 1933. Suggestion of Error Overruled, July 17, 1933.
1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.
Rights of parties to contract of sale of land by state for taxes thereon are determined by statute under which sale was made and cannot thereafter be substantially impaired (Laws 1922, chapter 241, sections 2, 3; Code 1930, section 3259; Const. U.S. article 1, section 10, clause 1).
2. TAXATION.
State's obligation under 1922 act, on sale of land for unpaid taxes, to notify lienholders of record since 1915 of such sale, was not impaired by 1930 act, which required state to notify only those lienholders who recorded liens within six years prior to land sale (Laws 1922, chapter 241, sections 2, 3; Code 1930, section 3259; Const. U.S. article 1, section 10, clause 1).
3. TAXATION.
Tax deed to purchaser was void, where chancery clerk failed to notify lienor of sale as required under 1922 act, where lienor recorded lien nine years prior to sale, since 1930 act, which required that notice be given only to those lienors who recorded liens within six years of sale, was not applicable (Laws 1922, chapter 241, sections 2, 3; Code 1930, section 3259).
APPEAL from Chancery Court of Pike County.
J.N. Ogden, of Magnolia, for appellant.
The question here presented is, should the chancery clerk, when his duty arose to give notice to redeem from tax sales held in 1929, have looked to sections 3021 to 3027 inclusive of chapter 276, Laws 1930 (brought forward in the Code of 1930 as sections 3257 to 3262 inclusive), or to chapter 241, Laws 1922, for his method of procedure.
The appellant takes the position that the law of 1930 was the proper law for the clerk to look to since that was the law in force at the time he was required to send notice and since the law of 1922 had, at that time, been repealed, and was, therefore, no longer of any force and effect.
As the appellee appears as a lienor of record more than seven years prior to the sale of the lands herein involved, it is not entitled to notice to redeem under the 1930 law, nor can it complain for the lack of said notice. Therefore, appellee's only hope lies in the law of 1922, the provisions of which would have included appellee. However, the law of 1922 had long since been repealed at the time when appellee would have same applied.
The rule that a repealed law is dead for all intents and purposes is one that needs no authority.
Rules governing tax redemptions may be changed by the Legislature after the tax sale.
State ex rel. National Bond S. Co. v. Krahmer, 105 Minn. 422, 117 N.W. 780, 21 L.R.A. (N.S.) 157; Curtis v. Whitney et al., 13 Wall 68-72, 20 L.Ed. 513; 7 Roses Notes on United States Reports, 491, 495; Archambau v. Green, 21 Minn. 520.
The Legislature of 1930 passed a public statute that gave notice to everybody that thenceforth the clerk of the chancery court would not be required to examine his records farther back than six years from the date of a tax sale. The Federal Land Bank had notice of this public statute, presumably. It had notice that examinations would not be made thereafter far enough back to reach its long-term mortgage recorded in 1921. It still had the right to redeem. That right was not taken away. The time within which it was allowed to redeem was not in anywise shortened. It was given notice, however, that no examination that clerks would thereafter make would reach back to its 1921 recorded mortgage.
C.T. Gordon, of Liberty, for appellee.
The appellee under chapter 241, Laws of 1922, was entitled to the notice as provided for under section 2, wherein it says it shall be the duty of said clerk of chancery court to examine the record of deeds, mortgages, and deeds of trust in his office, for a period beginning January 1, 1915, to ascertain the names and addresses of all mortgagees, beneficiaries, and holders of vendor's liens of all land sold for taxes, and shall within the time fixed in section 1, of this act, send by registered mail to all such lienors so shown of record.
The appellee was entitled to this notice which was the law in effect at the time of the tax sale of the land to the state of Mississippi. To hold otherwise would be to impair the obligations of the contract.
Price v. Harley, 142 Miss. 684, 107 So. 673; Everett v. Williamson, 163 Miss. 848, 143 So. 690; 26 R.C.L., pages 431, 435, 26 R.C.L., par. 388, page 431; 44 L.R.A. (N.S.) 667; 26 R.C.L., par. 390, page 434.
Argued orally by J.N. Ogden, for appellant, and C.T. Gordon, for appellee.
The appellee exhibited an original bill against the appellant and others by which it seeks to foreclose a deed of trust it has on certain land and to cancel the appellant's claim to a part thereof as a cloud on its title thereto. The decree was in accord with the prayer of the bill.
The appellant's claim to the land arises as follows: The land was owned by Varnado, who gave the appellee a deed of trust thereon in December, 1921. Varnado agreed to pay all taxes that might thereafter be assessed against the land. He failed to pay the taxes on a part of the land for the year 1928, resulting in it being sold to the state therefor. Varnado failed to redeem it, and, after the expiration of two years from its sale, the clerk of the chancery court of the county in which the land is situated certified the sale to the state land commissioner, who thereafter conveyed it to the appellant.
Section 2, chapter 241, Laws 1922, which was in effect when this land was sold for taxes, provides: "It shall be the duty of said clerk of the chancery court to examine the records of deeds, mortgages and deeds of trust in his office for a period beginning January 1, 1915, to ascertain the names and addresses of all mortgagees, beneficiaries and holders of vendors' liens of all lands sold for taxes, and shall, within the time fixed in section 1 of this act [within ninety days and not less than sixty days prior to the expiration of the time of redemption], send by registered mail to all such lienors so shown of record the following notice, to-wit." The notice required sets forth the sale of the land for taxes, "and that the title to said land will become absolute in said purchaser unless redemption from said sale be made on or before the ____ day of ____."
Section 3 of the statute provides that a failure of the clerk to give this notice "shall render the tax title void as to such lienors."
The notice required by the statute was not given the appellee, and it had no other notice or knowledge of the sale of the land for taxes.
By section 3014, chapter 276, Laws 1930, which became effective on June 1, 1930, and which now appears as section 3259, Code 1930, section 2, chapter 241, Laws 1922, was amended so as to require the clerk to examine the the records of deeds, mortgages, and deeds of trust in his office for a period of six years only prior to the date of sale of land for taxes and to notify lienors thereof whose liens were filed of record within that time. Under this statute the clerk was not charged with the duty of notifying the appellee of the sale of the land for taxes. The question then is, Is the appellee's right to notice from the chancery clerk of the sale of the land for taxes governed by section 2, chapter 241, Laws of 1922, or by section 3014, chapter 276, Laws 1930?
There are always three parties to a contract for the sale of land by the state for the taxes thereon to a person other than the state — the owner of the land, the purchaser thereof, and the state — and sometimes a fourth, a person having a lien thereon. The rights of all parties to the contract of sale are fixed and governed by the statute under which the sale was made, and they cannot thereafter be substantially impaired under clause 1, section 10, article 1, of the Federal Constitution. When the sale for taxes was here made, the state was obligated, under section 2, chapter 241, Laws 1922, to give notice of the sale through its administrative officer, the chancery clerk, to which the appellant agreed by purchasing the land. This obligation thereafter remained in force, and was not, and could not be, impaired by section 3014, chapter 276, Laws 1930. Compare Price v. Harley, 142 Miss. 584, 107 So. 673; and Everett v. Williamson, 163 Miss. 848, 143 So. 690.
The tax deed, therefore, because of the clerk's failure to give the appellee notice thereof, is void.
Affirmed.