Laney v. Proctor, 8 Div. 893.

• Decision Date: 16 June 1938
• Docket Number: 8 Div. 893.
• Parties: LANEY v. PROCTOR.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

182 So. 37

236 Ala. 318

LANEY v. PROCTOR.

8 Div. 893.

Supreme Court of Alabama

June 16, 1938

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County; A. E. Hawkins, Judge.

Action of ejectment by John F. Proctor against J. C. Laney. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.

Reversed and rendered.

Garrett Hagan and Foster & Hagan, all of Scottsboro, for appellant.

Proctor & Snodgrass, of Scottsboro, for appellee.

KNIGHT Justice.

Statutory ejectment.

The plaintiff relied upon a tax title, and in support thereof offered in evidence a tax deed executed to him by the Judge of Probate of Jackson County on June 17th, 1933. In addition to said tax deed, the plaintiff also offered in evidence certain other deeds, including a deed from Georgia Minerals Company to B. W. Newsom, under date of October 18, 1923.

It appears from the evidence in the cause that the property sued for was assessed for state and county taxes during the years 1924 to 1934, both inclusive, to said B. W. Newsom, and for the years 1934 to 1937 to John F. Proctor, the plaintiff. It also appears from the tax deed executed to Mr. Proctor that Newsom failed to pay the taxes assessed against said property for the tax year 1929, and that the lands were sold on June 23, 1930, to satisfy the amount due the state and county for the taxes for the year 1929. At this sale Proctor became the purchaser. The property not having been redeemed within the time allowed by law, the Judge of Probate executed a deed to said purchaser.

It also appears, without conflict, from the evidence that this same land during the years from 1934 to 1937 was assessed for state and county taxes to the appellant, J. C. Laney, and that Laney paid these taxes during said years. And it further appears that, Laney having failed to pay the state and county taxes on the land for the tax year 1930, the land was sold to satisfy the lien of the state and county, and J. H. Hurt became the purchaser for the amount of the taxes, interest, penalties and cost. The record further shows that Laney duly redeemed the land from this tax sale on July 10, 1933, by paying to the Judge of Probate of said county the sum of $47.53, which amount represented the purchase money, interest at fifteen per cent, cost of certificate, and subsequent taxes and interest for the years 1931 and 1932. Upon this payment to the Probate Judge, that official, as required by law, issued to the said Laney redemptioner, a certificate of redemption.

The tax sale at which the plaintiff became the purchaser took place on June 23rd, 1930, and the tax deed was executed by the Judge of Probate to said Proctor on June 17th, 1933.

This action was commenced on July 7th, 1937.

There was other evidence in the case, but of such nature that we deem it unnecessary to a decision of the cause to set it out. The cause was tried by the court without a jury, and upon conclusion of the evidence the court rendered judgment for the plaintiff for the lands sued for.

In rendering judgment for the plaintiff, the court committed error. The defendant was entitled to a judgment upon two grounds at least.

The rule is firmly established in this jurisdiction, as well as elsewhere, that the burden is upon the party claiming under a tax title to show the necessary and substantial compliance with all statutory requirements culminating in the sale of the taxpayer's property to discharge the tax lien of the state and county, and the courts are enjoined to give a strict construction to such proceedings in determining the question of their regularity and validity. Union Central Life Ins. Co. v. State, 226 Ala. 420, 147 So. 187; Gunter v. Townsend, 202 Ala. 160, 79 So. 644; Galloway Coal Co. v. Warrior Black Creek Coal Co., 204 Ala. 107, 85 So. 440; Doe ex dem. Standifer v Styles, 185 Ala. 550, 64 So. 345.

While the deed executed to the plaintiff was prima facie evidence of the regularity of all...