Pung v. Isabella County · ¶24

During all this time, State laws said much the same. See Tyler, 598 U. S., at 640, and n. 1. For example, a 1797 Maryland law required local officials to return the “overplus” from a tax sale to the former owner. 1797 Md. Laws. ch. 90, §5. Likewise, a 1792 North Carolina statute made the Sheriff “accountable to the owners of the lands for all monies which may come into his hands over and above the sums due for public taxes.” 1792 N. C. Sess. Laws §6, p. 23. And a 1785 Massachusetts law directed that the “overplus . . . be immediately restored to the former owner.” 1785 Mass. Acts p. 568. Shortly after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, a leading treatise surveyed state practices and found several ways of refunding surplus funds—some did so by bond, others through the county treasury—but all refunded only the “surplus” “if the bid exceed the tax.” T. Cooley, Law of Taxation…

slip opinion
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.