Opinion of the Court. tain possession of the land purchased. He acquired, it is contended, the further right "to bide his time, not to take out a lease and engage in litigation to secure the land itself, but, as the easier course, to wait and rely on securing, through the operation of the record of sale in the office of the Registrar, the very profitable return on his money, provided by the percentage of fifteen per cent, which, along with the amount of the purchase money, the owner of the land is, by the statutes, compelled to pay, on redeeming the property, in order to clear his title." The latter right, we are informed by the plaintiff, is the one usually exercised by purchasers at tax sales in Brooklyn. Any interference with it, he contends, impairs the obligation of his contract with the city. We cannot assent to this view. The plaintiff was entitled, by the contract, to a return of the amount paid by him, together with any other tax or assessment chargeable on the land and paid by him, with fifteen per cent per annum in addition thereto; and, if such amounts were not paid to the collector for him within two years after the sale, he could demand a conveyance according to the terms of his purchase, and obtain possession by summary proceedings. As none of the lots purchased were redeemed, the plaintiff became entitled, when the time for redemption passed, to a lease of each lot for the term of years specified in the respective certificates of sale. Now, the right to such leases was not taken away by the act of 1885. Nothing in that act prevented the plaintiff from obtaining them on the day after its passage. But, as we have seen, it did provide that no action or special proceeding should be brought or maintained to compel the execution of conveyances or leases in respect to any sale for taxes, assessments or water rates made more than eight years prior to June 6, 1885, unless instituted within six months after that date, and notice thereof filed in the office of the Registrar of Arrears. Whatever was the period prescribed by the laws of New York prior to June 6, 1885, for such actions or special proceedings and it is not disputed that there was a limitation under the local law for suits of that character- the time was reduced by the act of that date. Can this enactment be Opinion of the Court. assailed simply upon the ground that it prescribes a shorter time for the bringing of actions to compel the execution of such conveyances than was given when the contracts therefor were made? Clearly not. It is the settled doctrine of this court that the legislature may prescribe a limitation for the bringing of suits where none previously existed, as well as shorten the time within which suits to enforce existing causes of action may be commenced, provided, in each case, a reasonable time, taking all the circumstances into consideration, be given by the new law for the commencement of suit before the bar takes effect. Terry v. Anderson, 95 U. S. 628, 632; Koshkonong v. Burton, 104 U. S. 668, 675; Mitchell v. Clark, 110 U. S. 633, 643. The latest case upon the subject in this court is McGahey v. Virginia (In re Brown), 135 U. S. 662, 701, 705, 706, 707, in which the above principle is affirmed, the court saying: "No one rule as to the length of time which will be deemed reasonable can be laid down for the government of all cases alike. Different circumstances will often require a different rule. What would be reasonable in one class of cases would be entirely unreasonable in another." We cannot say that the limitation prescribed by the act of 1885 is unreasonable when applied to those who neglected for eight years prior to its passage to demand the conveyances or leases to which they were entitled. On the contrary, considerations of public policy required that the records of the sale of real property in Brooklyn for taxes, assessments and water rates, should no longer remain in the condition to which they had been brought in 1885 by reason of purchasers having forborne, for an unreasonably long period, to obtain leases, that they might realize interest upon their investments in tax titles, at the rate of fifteen per cent per annum. By not taking a lease, when entitled to it, the purchaser put the taxpayer in a position where the latter would be compelled, if he desired to sell or mortgage the property to another, to pay not only the amount advanced by the former, but interest at the above rate for the whole time subsequent to the sale. The legislature did not intend, by the acts of 1854 and 1873, to establish any such relations between the taxpayer and the purchaser, or to put Opinion of the Court. the former at the mercy of the latter for an indefinite period; for both acts contemplated the execution by the collector of a lease immediately upon the expiration of the time for redemption giving the purchaser, in that way, precisely what he bought. But whatever may have been the reasons that induced the enactment of the statute of 1885, the period within which actions must be brought was a matter resting primarily with the legislative department of the state government; and as statutes of limitation have for their object, and are deemed necessary to, the repose and security of society, the determination of that department should not be interfered with by the courts, unless the time allowed to bring suits upon existing causes of action is, in view of all the circumstances, so short as not to give parties affected by it a reasonable opportunity to protect their rights under the new law. It is further contended that, even if the statute is sufficient to bar an action to compel the execution of a conveyance to the purchaser, unless brought within the time prescribed, it is unconstitutional in that it requires the Registrar — after the expiration of six months from its passage without any such action being commenced and notice thereof given within that period to cancel in his office all sales made more than eight years prior to June 6, 1885, and provides that "thereupon the lien of all such certificates of sale shall cease and determine." That provision, it is said, destroys the security upon which the purchaser relied when he advanced his money, namely, the lien of the record after sale. This position is untenable. The substantial rights acquired by the purchaser was a return of his money, with interest, or, after a certain time, a lease of the premises for the term named in the certificate of sale. The lien created by the certificate of sale protected him during the period within which the owner of the property was permitted to redeem; and if the latter redeemed, he could only do so, of strict right, within a given time; and then only by reimbursing the purchaser all he had paid, with the addition of fifteen per cent per annum. If there was no redemption, the purchaser was entitled to a lease that would give him all for which he bargained. The lien, consequently, would cease Opinion of the Court. upon the execution and delivery to the purchaser of a lease. If the lien was of such character that the purchaser, not having received a conveyance, could enforce it by suit or special proceeding commenced for that specific purpose, the power of the legislature to prescribe a period within which such a suit or proceeding must be commenced, or the lien be lost, is as clear as its power to fix the time within which the purchaser must sue to compel the execution of a conveyance or lease. If, on the other hand, the lien was given only to protect the purchaser, in respect to his outlay, with interest, until he was entitled to demand a conveyance, or until a conveyance was actually made, the power of the legislature to require the record of sale to be cancelled and the lien to cease, when the purchaser, by not suing within the prescribed time, had lost his right to a conveyance or lease, cannot be questioned. The limitation prescribed by the statute applies equally to a suit to compel a conveyance, and to a proceeding (if a separate suit for that purpose could be maintained) to enforce the alleged lien. It declares, in effect, that the right to the lien and the right to a conveyance shall, in the cases specified, depend upon a suit being brought within a certain time to compel the execution of a conveyance in accordance with the terms of sale. In other words, that the record of a sale, including the certifi cate of sale, shall not remain a cloud upon the title. after the purchaser has failed, for six months after the passage of the act, to obtain, or to demand by suit the time for redemption having passed—what, in view of the statute, must be regarded as the principal object of his purchase, namely, a conveyance or lease, with the right, by means of summary proceedings, to obtain possession of the premises sold to him for a term of years. We are of opinion that such legislation did not impair the obligation of the plaintiff's contract. What has been said is sufficient to dispose of the additional suggestion to the effect that the cancellation of the record of sales at which the plaintiff purchased deprived him of his property without due process of law, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. He asserts a proprietary right in such record for what it was worth. But, if the observations made VOL. CXXXVII-17 Statement of the Case. by us in respect to the first point be sound, he had no such right, after permitting the period to elapse within which he could bring suit to compel the execution of a conveyance or lease. A statute of limitation cannot be said to impair the obligation of a contract, or to deprive one of property without due process of law, unless, in its application to an existing right of action, it unreasonably limits the opportunity to enforce that right by suit. Judgment affirmed. MACFARLAND v. JACKSON. Error to the Supreme Court of the State of New York. No. 66. Argued November 11, 1890. Decided November 24, 1890. MR. JUSTICE HARLAN delivered the opinion of the court. This case presents the same questions that are disposed of in the above opinion. For the reasons therein stated the judgment is Mr. John J. Townsend for plaintiff in error. Mr. Almet F. Jenks for defendant in error. Affirmed. DOBSON v. LEES. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA. Decided December 1, 1890. A reissue of letters patent is an amendment, and cannot be allowed to enlarge the claims of the original by including matter once intentionally omitted. Such intentional omission may be shown by conduct, and the inventor cannot be permitted to treat deliberate and long continued acts of his attorney as other than his own. In this case there is no room for the contention that there was any inadvertence, accident or mistake attending the issue of the original patent, and the reissue was correctly held to be invalid. IN EQUITY for the infringement of letters patent. Decree dismissing the bill. Plaintiffs appealed. The case is stated in the opinion. |