Legal Opinion

Marx v. Hanthorn

Supreme Court of the United States

Decided March 6, 1893No. 123PublishedCited by 88 opinions

ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OE THE UNITED STATES FOR THE. DISTRICT OF OREGON. To make a tax sale valid, observance of every safeguard to the owner created by statute is imperatively necessary. This action, was brought by the plaintiff, a subject of the Emperor of Germany, against the defendant, a citizen of Oregon, to recover the possession of lots 3 and 4, in block E, in the town of Portland.

Read the full summary

ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OE THE UNITED STATES FOR THE. DISTRICT OF OREGON. To make a tax sale valid, observance of every safeguard to the owner created by statute is imperatively necessary. This action, was brought by the plaintiff, a subject of the Emperor of Germany, against the defendant, a citizen of Oregon, to recover the possession of lots 3 and 4, in block E, in the town of Portland. The action was originally brought against B. Campbell, the party in possession, who, having answered that he was in possession as the tenant of Ida J. Hanthorn, the latter was substituted for h'im as…

1Opinion of the CourtJustice Shiras

As there must be express statutory authority for selling lands for taxes, and as such sale is in the nature of an ex parte proceeding, there must be, in order to make out a valid title, a substantial compliance with the provisions of the law-authorizing the sale. A statutory power, to be validly executed, must be executed according to the statutory directions. It is, no doubt, true that there may be provisions in tax laws that are made in the interest of' the public, and which do not concern the taxpayer; and a failure to punctiliously observe them may furnish him with no just ground of…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Howard v. . MootNew York Court of Appeals · 1876
  2. Forster v. ForsterMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1880
  3. Southwoth v. BradfordMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1809

3Cited by88 opinions

  1. Ex Parte PetersonSupreme Court of the United States · 1920
  2. Meeker & Co. v. Lehigh Valley RRSupreme Court of the United States · 1915
  3. Turpin v. LemonSupreme Court of the United States · 1902
  4. Castillo v. McConnicoSupreme Court of the United States · 1898
  5. Spitcaufsky v. HattenSupreme Court of Missouri · 1944

83 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API