Welles v. SchafferWelles v. Schaffer
The bill is filed to redeem lands from tax sales. One of the complainants was the owner of the fee, and the other three held mortgage and judgment liens, at the time of the sales. On October 11th, 1917, the collector of the borough of Rosselle sold the lands, in fee, in three groups or blocks, for the taxes of 1916; one group to the defendant, Schaffer, the other two to one Wiltsie, who assigned to Schaffer. On April 3d 1923, Schaffer filed and recorded in the office of the register of deeds of Union county the tax collector‘s certificates of sales, the assignment to him by Wiltsie, his affidavits of inquiry, and of mailing on April 8th, 1922, of notices to the complainants to redeem, a copy of the notice, and his affidavit of their failure to redeem, all annexed, and all in due form as required by section 59 of the General Tax act of 1903 (Comp. Stat.p. 5138), and no question is raised as to their sufficiency, save in the things hereafter pointed out.
It is set up that the certificates are void because — (a) they fail to state that there was no bidder for a term less than a term in fee. Fairfield Dairy Co. v. Pier, 80 N.J. Law 649. (b) Two of them failed to sufficiently identify the property sold, the description being “parts of lots,” which parts not being stated. (c) They have no seal of the collector attached.Comp. Stat. 1540 § 20a. These defects cannot be considered on a bill to redeem from a purchaser.
To maintain that they are not barred, the complainants contend that in foreclosing the right to redeem the defendant, Schaffer, failed to comply, in numerous respects, with the requirements of the Tax Sale Revision act of 1918 (at p. 883). The sale having been made under the act of 1903, the proceedings to foreclose were properly taken under that act. Moore Security Co. v. O.J.Hammel Co., 3 N.J. Adv. R. 128; 97 N.J. Eq. 292.
The only meritorious question raised is that Schaffer did not mail the notices to redeem. In the affidavits annexed to the certificates and filed and recorded therewith, he affirms he did, giving the particulars, in all manner conformable to the statute. Three of the complainants swear they did not receive the notices, although their post office addresses were as stated in the affidavit of service. What they say is not necessarily inconsistent with Schaffer‘s affidavit that he mailed them. Their denials that they received the notices, coupled with the presumption that a letter mailed reaches its destination (1Wigm. Ev. § 95), would, without more, justify the inference that they were not mailed, but Schaffer, at the trial, gave persuasive testimony that the notices were posted.
The certificate of sale of the group of lots sold to Schaffer, direct, describes the property as “Block 10, lots, parts, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 Loraine.” The certificate is, no doubt, void for uncertainty. The notice calls on Welles and others, to redeem lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 — not parts of lots. This is fatal to the foreclosure, and complainants are entitled to redeem as to
Decree accordingl