Lessee of Wister v. Kammerer

To vest a title in lands sold for non-payment of taxes, an exact and punctuaradlierence to the laws is necessary. It must appear that they were regularly advertised. The act of 26th March 1Y85, does-not respect sheriffs’ deeds under commissioners’ sales.

Ejectment for 90 acres of land in Bethlehem township, in Northampton county. The suit was tried at Easton, before Shippen and Bradford, Justices, on the 24th September 1793, and a verdict passed for the defendant. A rule was obtained to show cause why a new trial should not be granted. Shippen, J. now reported the evidence on the trial: A patent had issued to Casper Wistar for the lands in question, under whom the lessor of the plaintiff derived her title. On the 16th July 1781, and 10th October 1781, the commissioners of the county published general advertisements, that lands which had taxes due on them would be sold. On the 21st, Angust 1782, they issued a precept to Robert Trial, Esq., then sheriff of the county, to sell certain specified tracts of land, (of which the tract in dispute was one,) enumerating the respective sums due thereon, for the state taxes of 1781 and 1782. On the 26th August 1782, the. conditions of the sale, by way. of public vendue, were published, and the premises were struck off to Conrad Ihrie for 152Z. 10s., and on the 26th December 1783, Robert Trial, the sheriff, conveyed the same to him for that sum, and Ihrie afterwards conveyed to the defendant, in consideration of 440Z. One witness swore, that he thoughtjthe sale unfair, the premises •having been struck off too early, but other witnesses swore to the contrary. It was admitted, that the defendant, and Ihrie under whom he claimed, had been in possession since the sale in 1782. Five objects were made at the trial, to the defendant’s title: 1st, That it did not appear the oath or affirmation of the commissioners has been signed by them, certified by the justices, or filed by the clerk of the session. 2d, The lands were not advertised by the commissioners,for at least three months in some of the English and German newspapers, previous to the sale. 3d, No money appeared to have been paid by the purchaser; but to this it was answered, that the Ihrie being the treasurer of the county at the time, he was chargeable therewith, and the money must be considered as in the county treasury. 4th, The sum assessed for taxes on the premises was only 87i. but lands were sold to the amount of 1521. 10s. 5th, The sale was said to be unfair, and conducted with unbecoming precipitation. No other evidence was given of the commissioner’s advertisements, except as is before specified, and on this ground the court gave a charge in favor of the plaintiff) but the jury found for the defendant.