
    WILLIAM N. FAGAN v. THE UNITED STATES.
    [No. 14574.
    Decided February 25, 1889.]
    
      On the Proofs.
    
    Property sold in Tennessee under the Direct Tax Acts appears on the State assessment roll as owned by another party. The claimant now produces a deposition in which the witness testifies that he has examined the records and found a deed to the claimant of the property, but shows nothing, further. He also produces a certificate of the county register to the same effect.
    
      In a suit to recover a surplus of a sale under tlie Direct Tax Aete 1861, 1862 (12 Stat. L., 292, 422), a deposition of a witness and tlie certificate of tlie register of the county stating in general terms that the property was conveyed to the claimant are not competent and satisfactory evidence of ownership.
    
      The Reporters statement of the case:
    The following are the facts as found by the court:
    I. June 24, 1864, the direct-tax commissioners for the State of Tennessee, under the Acts of August 5,1861 (12 Stat., 292), and June 7, 1862 (12 Stat., 422), sold for the non-payment of direct taxes a piece of land in Shelby County of that State, described as lot No. 9, Mosby subdivision, assessed in 1860 to W. F. Dyer, fifth civil district (city of Memphis); and the same was struck off to Hugh Canley for $85, to whom, on payment of said sum to said commissioners, a tax-sale certificate, No. 914, was issued. Taxes, penalty, costs, and interest amounted to $5.42, leaving a surplus paid into the Treasury of $79.58.
    II. June 28, 1883, the claimant made application to the Secretary of the Treasury for the surplus proceeds of the sale. April 12,1884, payment was refused.
    III. The only evidence of title to the land in this claimant presented to the court is contained in the deposition of J. C. McDavitt, in which he testifies that in the register’s office of Shelby County a deed of this lot to William N. Fagan, dated May 27,1859, is recorded in book 39, part 1, page 463, and that no conveyance of said lot from said Fagan prior to July 1, 1864, is found on record, and. in the certificate of the register to the same facts. The register also certifies that the records existed in this way during the whole of 1864. By whom this deed was executed and what title the vender had, or claimed to have, does not appear.
    
      Mr. Gilbert Moyers for the claimant.
    
      Mr. Eeber J. May (with whom was Mr. Assistant-Attorney General Howard) for the defendants.
   Scofield, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court:

June 23,1864, the direct-tax commissioners for the State of Tennessee, under the Acts of Augusts, 1861 (12 Stat., 292), and June 7,1862 (12 Stat., 422), sold, for the non-payment of direct taxes, a piece of land in Shelby County of that State. It was bid off by Hugh Canley for $85, to whom, on payment of his bid, a tax-sale certificate was issued.

The taxes, penalty, costs, and interest amounted to $5.42, leaving a surplus of $79.58 which was paid into the Treasury. For this surplus, the claimant made application at the Treasury Department January 23, 1883, but payment was refused April 12,1884.

In the last valuation under State authority, prior to secession, the land had been assessed as belonging to W. F. Dyer.

The claimant, in support of his title, offers the deposition of J. C. McDavitt, in which he testifies that he had examined the records of Shelby County, and found that a deed for this lot, dated May 27, 1859, in-favor of this claimant, had been recorded. He does not state by whom the deed had been executed, what title the vender had or claimed to have, nor when it was recorded. , He further. testifies that he found no(record - of a conveyance of this lot from the claimant prior to July 1, 1864.

The claimant also files a certificate from the register of the county stating in substance the same facts, and the additional fact that this record existed during the whole of 1864.

For anything that appears to the contrary in this case, the real owner of the land at the time of sale is entitled to recover the surplus. The claimant, however, has not shown, by any competent and satisfactory evidence, that he was the owner.

The petition is dismissed.  