{
  "id": 8660130,
  "name": "SOUTHERN IMMIGRATION, IMPROVEMENT AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY v. JOSEPH ROSEY et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Southern Immigration, Improvement & Manufacturing Co. v. Rosey",
  "decision_date": "1907-04-16",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "370",
  "last_page": "374",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "144 N.C. 370"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C.",
    "id": 9292,
    "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "56 S. E., 684",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "56 S. E., 694",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "69 N. C., 346",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2085467
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/69/0346-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "122 N. C., 741",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8661644
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/122/0741-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 458,
    "char_count": 8387,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.421,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.811183091813877e-08,
      "percentile": 0.36188075057657804
    },
    "sha256": "4913653434bfe6a348e5ab0acd09c85e11b4c2eae98187299fc07f9a8e6e8cbd",
    "simhash": "1:a3ada8742884655b",
    "word_count": 1475
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:27:07.773177+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "SOUTHERN IMMIGRATION, IMPROVEMENT AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY v. JOSEPH ROSEY et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Hoke, J.\nThe plaintiff having offered in evidence a deed from J. E. Chamberlain for the land in controversy, which antedates the sale for taxes and deed made pursuant thereto, in which the land was sold for taxes and conveyed as the property of J. E. Chamberlain, plaintiff\u2019s grantor, the rights of the parties litigant as to the ownership and possession of the land was properly made to depend on the validity of the said tax deed. Edwards v. Lyman, 122 N. C., 741.\nAccording to the testimony, this sale took place on 6 May, 1901, and S. M. Jones, who was then Sheriff and tax collector, gave to Joseph Rosey, the purchaser, a certificate; and. on 19 May, 1902, the said tax collector undertook to execute a deed for the land to Joseph Rosey, which was void because it contained no sufficient description of the property and no data from which a description could be established or permitted by the aid of parol testimony. Grier v. Allen, 69 N. C., 346; Tremane v. Williams, present term, 56 S. E., 694; and perhaps for other defects which could be suggested.\nRecognizing that this attempted conveyance was not sufficient to pass the property, the defendants procured from S. M. Jones the deed under which they now claim the property, sufficient in form for the purpose desired, and which was executed by S. M. Jones on 15 May, 1905, after he had gone out of office, and which is signed by him as ex-Sheriff.\nNo objection can be made to this deed from the mere fact that the grantor therein was not in office at the time the same was executed. Our statute expressly provides to the contrary, both as to sheriffs and tax collectors. Revisal, 1905, sec. 950. But the objection urged, and which w\u00e9 think is available to defeat the claim of defendants under this deed, is that the same was executed, more than two years after the date of the sale.\nThe statute applicable to this question', Laws 1901, ch. 558, sec. 18, provides that \u201cat any time within one year after the expiration of one year from the date of sale of any real estate for taxes, if the same shall not have been redeemed, the Sheriff, on request and on production of the certificate of purchase, shall execute and deliver to the purchaser, his heirs or assigns, a deed of conveyance for the property,\u201d etc.\nThe same provision will be found, somewhat differently expressed, in Revisal, sec. 2905:\n\"Deed, vjhen and by whom made. \u2014 At any time after one year, and within two years from the day of sale of any real estate for taxes, and upon demand of the purchaser, etc., the Sheriff shall execute a conveyance.\u201d\nWhile these revenue laws should, in their general features, receive a reasonable and just construction, so as to promote and make efficient the evident purpose of the Legislature, it is also an accepted principle that in those features which may operate to- deprive a citizen of his property by quasi summary proceedings or impose forfeitures upon him their requirements should be strictly complied with.\nBlack on Interpretation of Laws, p. 328, where we find the doctrine stated as follows:\n\u201cAgain, those provisions of the revenue laws which authorize the officers of the revenue to make public sale of the lands on which the taxes remain delinquent are to be construed with strictness, so far as to require an exact compliance with all those provisions which are designed for the security and protection of the tax-payer, though less stress may be laid upon such provisions as are merely directions to the officers. The reason is that laws of this character operate to deprive the citizen of his estate, not, indeed, without due process of law, but by the agency of ministerial officers and in a summary manner, which may result in injustice, or even oppression, if. his rights are not carefully guarded.\u201d\nAnd further:\n\u201cWhen the statute under which land is sold for taxes directs an act to be done, or prescribes the form, time and manner of doing any act, such act must be done and in the form, time, and manner prescribed, or the title is invalid, and in this respect the statute must be strictly, if not literally, complied with.\u201d\nIn making a sale of this character and conveying the delinquent\u2019s property to the purchaser, the Sheriff or tax collector acts solely by virtue of tbe authority given in'the statute; and the statute having only conferred authority to make such a deed after one year, and within two years from date of sale, the officer\u2019s deed made after that date is invalid and conveys no title to the purchaser.\n\"We have so held .at the present term, in Beaufort County Lumber Co. v. Price, 56 S. E., 684.\nNo authority for such a deed is found in the statute, and there is no principle or rule of construction which would permit or justify the Court in ignoring the express limitation fixed' by the law itself.\nThe deed, therefore, under which defendants claim, having been made more than four years after the tax collector\u2019s sale, conveyed no title to the purchaser, and the Court below w.as correct in holding that on the evidence, if believed, the issues as to title and possession should be answered in favor of plaintiff.\nThe plaintiff not having \u00e1ppealed, the question o'f whether the claim for taxes paid by Joseph Rosey was asserted within the time required by the statute, Revisal, 1905, secs. 2911 and 2912, is not presented.\nThere is no error, and the judgment below is affirmed.\nNo Error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Hoke, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "17. J. Adams and J. PL. Pou for plaintiff.",
      "U. L. Bpence for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "SOUTHERN IMMIGRATION, IMPROVEMENT AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY v. JOSEPH ROSEY et al.\n(Filed 16 April, 1907).\n1. Tax Deed \u2014 Maker\u2014Ex-Sheriff\u2014Revisal 1905, sec. 950. \u2014 A tax deed, signed and executed by one who was the Sheriff of the county at the time of the sale of land for taxes, after the expiration of his term of office, as \u201cex-sheriff,\u201d is authorized by Revisal, 1905, sec. 950, and is to that extent valid.\n2. Same \u2014 After Two Years From Sale Day \u2014 Statute\u2014Void.\u2014Under the Daws of 1901 eh.. 588, and the Revisal 1905, sec. 2905, a tax deed made by a sheriff more than \u201ctwo years from the day of sale of the real estate for taxes,\u201d etc., is void, the authority of the Sheriff to make the deed being solely derived from the statute, the statute being capable of a strict construction only, the time limitation must be observed.\n3. Same \u2014 Purchaser\u2014Money Paid \u2014 Lien.\u2014A purchaser of land at a tax sale under the statute, subsequently acquiring an invalid title by reason of insufficient description, or void for not having been made within the statutory time, is entitled to have the amount he has paid therefor declared a lien on the land in his favor.\nCivil actioN to recover land, tried before Justice, J., and a jury, at September Term, 1906, Superior Court of Moose County.\nPlaintiff claimed title under a deed conveying tbe land to plaintiff from J. R. Chamberlain, dated 9 June, 1891, and offered said deed in evidence. Plaintiff also introduced oral evidence tending to show occupation and claim of ownership under said deed.\nDefendant claimed title under a tax deed from S. M. Jones, ex-Sheriff and former tax collector of Moore County, to one Joseph Rosey, bearing date 15 May, 1905, purporting to be made by virtue of a sale for taxes of the .land in dispute, which took place on 6 May, 1901, while said S. M. Jones was Sheriff and tax collector of Moore County, such land having been listed and sold as the property of said J. E. Chamberlain, plaintiff\u2019s grantor, and his brother. Defendant further set up a claim fox the amount of taxes paid by the purchaser, Joseph Eosey, whom defendants here represent, both as administratrix and heirs at law.\nThere were issues submitted as to plaintiff\u2019s ownership of the land and wrongful possession thereof by defendants, and also issues as to the amounts paid by Joseph Eosey for the purchase of said land and for payment of the tax thereon for the years 1900 and 1901.\nThe issues as to the amount paid by Joseph Eosey having been answered by consent of parties, the Court charged the jury that on the evidence, if believed, they would answer the issue as to the ownership of the land and wrongful possession thereof in favor of plaintiff.\nThere was judgment on the verdict for jdaintiff for the land, and also declaring the amounts paid by Joseph Eosey a lien thereon in favor of defendant administratrix, and from this judgment defendants excepted and appealed.\n17. J. Adams and J. PL. Pou for plaintiff.\nU. L. Bpence for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0370-01",
  "first_page_order": 410,
  "last_page_order": 414
}