Marx v. Hanthorn

Citations

• 148 U.S. 172
• 13 S. Ct. 508
• 37 L. Ed. 410
• 1893 U.S. LEXIS 2220

Syllabus

<p>When not modified by statute, the burden of proof is on the holder of a tax deed to maintain his title, when questioned, by showing that the provisions of the statute have been complied with.</p> <p>It is competent for a legislature to declare that a tax deed shall be prima facie evidence, not only of the regularity of the sale, but also of all prior proceedings, and of title in the purchaser; but as the legislature cannot deprive one of his property by making his adversary’s claim to it conclusive of its own validity, it cannot make a tax deed conclusive evidence of the holder’s title to the.land.</p> <p>The reasonable meaning of the Oregon statutes regulating notices and sales of property for taxes, (Gen. Laws, ed. 1874, 767, §§ 90, 93; Hill’s Ann. Laws, 1309,) is that such notice and advertisement should give the correct names of those whose property is to be sold.</p> <p>Notice in Oregon that the property of Ida J. Hawthorn was to be sold was' not only not notice that the property of Ida J. Hanthorn was to be-sold, but was actually misleading, and such want of notice or misleading notice vitiated the sale.</p>