Skip to main content

Gage v. Stewart

Citations

  • 127 Ill. 207
  • 19 N.E. 702

Syllabus

<p>1. Tax title—notice■—as„a prerequisite to a deed. A strict compliance •with the statute in respect to the service of notice of the purchase and when the time of redemption will expire, and of the proof thereof, is a prerequisite to the making of a valid tax deed.</p> <p>2. Same—notice—amendatory act of 1879 — its operation as respects sales made prior thereto. The requirements of section 216 of the Revenue law, as amended in 1879, not included in that section before such amendment, are, that service of notice shall be had upon “the owner of or parties interested in said land or lot, if they can, upon diligent, inquiry, be found in the county,” etc. Provision is made for publication in case the land or lot is unoccupied, or the person in whose name it is assessed, or the owners or parties interested therein, can not be found in the county, or if the owners, etc., are unknown to the purchaser or his assignee, publication maybe made as to them, as unknown owners, etc.</p> <p>3. This amendment of 1879 was intended to take effect in presentí as to all notices to be thereafter served, and to apply to all purchasers at tax sales and their assignees, irrespective of when the sales for taxes were made. The amended act applied to all steps to be taken after it went into effect, and which could be performed according to its requirements. This construction does not give the act a retrospective operation.</p> <p>4. A retrospective effect will not be given to a statute, unless the legislative intent that it shall so operate is clearly manifested. But no such effect is sought to be given to this statute. It, for the protection of those having the right to redeem, required that notice be served upon the owner, if to be found in the county, at least three months before the expiration of the time of redemption. The amendment in no way affects or applies to the sale, or any of the precedent steps lawful under the former statute, but relates solely to acts to be performed by the pur

Judges: Shore

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

9 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

2 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases named Gage v. Stewart

1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.