majority"> Stacy, J.

The validity of the plaintiff’s first claim of title was before this Court in tbe case of Thompson v. Lumber Co., 168 N. C., 226. It was there decided that tbe clerk and master’s deed to Joseph Pritchard was void for want of delivery, the grantee being dead at the time of its execution, but it was suggested that upon proof of payment of the purchase price, bid at the sale, an equitable estate would inure to the heirs of the purchaser. There are some circumstances tending to *16 show payment, but the evidence is not conclusive, and the fact is not admitted. In the absence of such finding, or sufficient evidence to establish payment, it cannot be said, as a matter of law, to have been made. Hence, no equitable estate has been established as vesting in the heirs of the purchaser.

The plaintiff having failed to show any legal title in Joseph Pritchard, or equitable estate in his heirs, it becomes unnecessary to consider again the alleged deed from James Taylor, administrator of Joseph Pritchard, to Matchett Taylor. Thompson v. Lumber Co., supra.

Plaintiff’s second claim of title is based upon four tax deeds purporting to have been executed by the sheriffs of Pasquotank County for taxes due on said lands and unpaid for the years 1881, 1888, and 1889. These deeds contain the usual recitals — three of them.having been executed under authority of the Laws of 1881 for taxes presumably due and unpaid for the years 1881 and 1888; and said deeds purport to convey two tracts of 140 acres and 1,100 acres, respectively. The fourth tax deed was executed under authority of the Laws of .1889 for taxes presumably due and unpaid for said year, and the same purports to convey 399 acres situate partly in the county of Pasquotank and partly in Perquimans County.

The power to sell real estate for delinquent taxes and the authority of the sheriff or tax collector to issue a tax deed to the. purchaser is a matter of statutory right, and can be exercised only in conformity with the law under which it is given. 37 Cyc., 1280.

By reference to chapter 131, Public Laws of 1881, it will be seen (sec. 10) that before any purchaser at a sale of land for taxes acquired the right to call for a deed, it was necessary for him to make an affidavit,, showing his compliance with the requirements of the statute, and present same to the person authorized by law to execute such tax deed; and, by such officer, it was to be delivered to the register of deeds for entry on the records of his office and for safe-keeping. Section 14 of said chapter provides that the sheriff’s deed shall be presumptive evidence as to some of the things required to be done, and conclusive evidence as to some of the others. But there is no presumption that the purchaser executed and presented the necessary affidavit. This must be established by evidence outside of the deed; and in the absence of such proof, the purchaser acquires no title. King v. Cooper, 128 N. C., 347; Matthews v. Fry, 141 N. C., 582; Warren v. Williford, 148 N. C., 474; Rexford v. Phillips, 159 N. C., 213.

It is admitted that the records of Pasquotank County fail to disclose-any affidavit from the imrchaser, or any one on its behalf, made at the time of or prior to the execution of the tax deeds; and there is no other evidence tending to shov its alleged loss or destruction, or that it ever- *17 existed. Thus failing to prove the making and presentation of the requisite affidavit, the plaintiff can derive no benefit from the three tax deeds purporting to have been executed under authority of the Laws of 1887, for taxes assessed and unpaid for the years 1887 and 1888.

Rut with respect to the fourth tax deed, executed under authority of chapter 218, Public Laws of 1889, for delinquent taxes due for said year, we conceive the law to be somewhat different. Sections 69, 70, and 71 of the act of 1887, relating specifically to matters and things required of the purchaser at the tax sale, are omitted from the act of 1889 ; while section 74, touching the matter of presumptions, is expressly brought forward with practically no modification. Saunders v. Earp, 118 N. C., 275; King v. Cooper, 128 N. C., 347.

Therefore, under this latter act, by reason of the changed requirements and virtually unchanged presumptions^ and from the facts agreed, it would appear that the plaintiff’s deed is valid as to that portion of the 399-acre tract lying wholly within the boundaries of Pasquotank County. The sheriff, however, was without authority to sell the lands situate beyond the limits of his own county (37 Cyc., 129; 26 R. C. L., 269), and as to that portion of the 399-acre tract lying in Perquimans County plaintiff’s tax deed is without - effect. The case of Hairston v. Stinson, 35 N. C., 479, is not in conflict with this position, because the provisions of the statute under which that case was decided are materially different from the law of 1889.

The plaintiff’s third claim, made for the purpose of showing an independent source of title, is derived from an alleged deed of date 24 October, 1904, executed by the State. Board of Education to George W. Roper, whose title, if any, under said deed, by mesne conveyances, has now passed to the plaintiff. It appears, however, from the ease agreed that in 1784 the lands in controversy were granted to Jonathan Herring, and again in 1792 another grant, covering the same lands, was issued to John Hamilton. A similar state of facts was before the Court in the case of Weston v. Lumber Co., 169 N. C., 398, where it is held that a deed of the State Board of Education has no legal effect when grants, covering the locus in quo, aré shown to have been issued by the State prior to 1825. Hence, plaintiff’s claim from- this source is without avail. A full and clear discussion of the effect and validity of deeds executed by the State Board of Education will be found in Weston’s case as reported on the first appeal, in Weston v. Lumber Co., 162 N. C., 165.

From the foregoing it follows that the judgment of the Superior Court must be modified so as to give the plaintiff only that portion of the 399-acre tract lying wholly within the boundaries of Pasquotank County, .and covered by the deed executed by the sheriff for the nonpayment of taxes for the year 1889; and award the remainder of said lands in *18 controversy to tlie defendants as tbeir respective interests, inter se, may be made to appear, conformably with tbe ag’reement filed in tbe cause. Let judgment be entered accordingly. -Each side will pay its own cost incurred on tbis appeal.

On both appeals, judgment modified and affirmed.

Citation profile

How this case has been treated — in progress