Pung v. Isabella County · ¶86

Second, before foreclosing on a delinquent taxpayer’s entire property, the government had to pursue only part of the property first. As this Court explained in Tyler, “[i]n collecting taxes, the new Government of the United States could seize and sell only so much of [a] tract of land . . . as may be necessary to satisfy the taxes due thereon.” 598 U. S., at 640 (internal quotation marks omitted). “‘[I]f a whole tract of land was sold when a small part of it would have been sufficient for the taxes,’” then “‘the collector unquestionably exceeded his authority.’” Ibid. (quoting Stead’s Executors v. Course, 4 Cranch 403, 414 (1808) (Marshall, C. J., for the Court)). Thus, a small property tax bill such as the Pungs’ would not justify an immediate sale of the entire property. See also, e.g., Cooley 343; Martin v. Snowden, 59 Va. 100, 147 (1868).

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