Anderson v. Post
| Decision Date | 13 June 1896 |
| Citation | 38 S.W. 283 |
| Parties | ANDERSON v. POST. |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
Appeal from chancery court, Hamilton county; T. M. McConnell, Chancellor.
Bill by E. C. Anderson against J. W. Post to set aside a tax sale. From a judgment for defendant, complainant appeals. Reversed.
Clark & Brown, for appellant. Bloom & Boddy, for appellee.
This is a bill filed to set aside a decree of sale and confirmation, and remove the same as a cloud from the title, and redeem lands sold under a decree in the chancery court for taxes. So far as material to state, the facts are as follows: The land in question was sold for the taxes for the year 1888. At the time the land was assessed for this year it was owned by T. T. Overshiner and wife, A. E. Overshiner, jointly. The following statement of facts in reference to the assessment and sale of this lot was agreed on by the parties, and is found in the record:
A copy of the assessment is also filed, and appears in the record, and is as follows:
=============================================================================================================================
| | | | | | | | | Total Real
| | | | | No. | Value | No. | Value | Personal
Name. | Bounded | Bounded | Bounded | Bounded | Town | Town | Acres | Acres of | and All
| | | | | Lot | Lot | | Land | Other
| | | | | | | | | Property
------------|----------|----------|---------------------|------------|--------|---------|--------|-----------|---------------
| On the | On the | On the East | On the | | | | |
G. F. | North by | South by | by Mr. McCullough's | West by | | | | |
Overshiner | Lot 11 | Blk. 8 | S. D. | 58 × 193 | 1 | 225 | | | 223
| | | | Ford St. | | | | |
------------|----------|----------|---------------------|------------|--------|---------|--------|-----------|---------------
W. M. | | | Mr. McCullough's | | | | | |
Haines | Lot 12 | Blk. 18 | S. D. | 58 × 193 | 1 | 350 | | | 350
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Besides these facts, it should be stated that on the 22d of November, 1889, W. M. Willhoite purchased lot 12 from T. T. Overshiner and wife, and then went into possession of the same, and the complainant purchased the lot from Willhoite May 13, 1893. In December, 1889, a bill was filed in the name of the state against T. T. Overshiner to sell the lot for the payment of taxes, and he alone was made a party, and by publication. The lot was sold during the year 1894, and bought by the defendant on the 29th of December, 1894.
Complainant filed this bill to set aside said sale to redeem the land, tendering $5.25, the amount of taxes due, and alleging that said lot was not legally assessed for the year 1888, and that the sale under the tax bill was void because neither A. E. Overshiner nor W. M. Willhoite was made a party to the bill under which the land was sold, and for other reasons, and further alleging that the land was worth $500. The proof is that the land was worth from $300 to $500. The chancellor decreed that the sale was void as to the sale of one-half interest of A. E. Overshiner, and for one-half awarded to complainant a recovery, but held that the assessment was valid, so as to bind the land, although in the name of G. T. Overshiner instead of T. T. Overshiner; that the lot was legally assessed; that W. M. Willhoite was the owner at the time the bill was filed, but was not a necessary party; and dismissed the bill as to the one-half of said property formerly owned by T. T. Overshiner. Complainant appeals, and assigns as errors: First, that the chancellor erred because he did not find that the lot was never in fact assessed for the year 1888; second, because he did not find that the assessment as made did not effect a lien as against the interest of T. T. Overshiner, and was void for uncertainty; third, because he did not hold that W. M. Willhoite, the owner at the time the bill was filed to enforce the sale for taxes, was a necessary party, and that his interest in said lot was not affected by the sale; fourth, because he did not hold that the sale of said lot was subject to complainant's equity of redemption.
We have incorporated in the statement above set out the full agreement of the parties as to the facts, so that they might have whatever benefit is to be derived therefrom. But, in our opinion, what was done, and all the references made, as to lot No. 11 of the same subdivision, not involved in this litigation, are not material here, and will serve in the main rather to divert the attention and confuse the mind than to aid in coming to a correct conclusion. What was done as to lot 11 might indicate how some of the mistakes were made. But the material inquiry is, what were the facts as to lot 12, the one in litigation? As to this we will repeat we find the situation substantially as follows: Lot 12, in 1888, was owned by G. T. and T. T. Overshiner. For that year it was not assessed to either of these, but to one W. T. Haines, who probably owned the adjoining lot. This so appeared both on the assessor's book for the district, and the tax duplicate made out for the use of the trustee. Afterwards (probably in 1889) a correction was sought to be made (probably by the trustee) by writing after "Lot 12," in pencil, the figures "11," and inclosing "12" in brackets; and after the name of G. T. Overshiner, to whom lot 11 had been assessed, writing likewise in pencil the figures "12," and inclosing the figures...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Shultz v. Carroll
-
Hunter Glover Co. v. Harvey Steel Products Corporation
...740, the cases of Randolph v. Metcalf, supra, and Anderson v. Post, decided by the court of chancery appeals of Tennessee and reported in 38 S. W. 283, are cited with In the Barnes Case there appears a portion of the exhibit which was a part of the assessment roll offered in the case which ......
-
Dunn v. Dunn
...In the result reached in that case this court concurred. Anderson v. Post, also an opinion of the court of chancery appeals, reported in 38 S.W. 283, was a case of an void for vital irregularities and insufficiency, and was affirmed upon that ground by this court. The cases of Ferguson v. Q......
-
Goodlett v. Goodman Coal & Coke Co.
...land of a registered owner can be validly taxed and sold in the name of his grantor-- a practical stranger to the title. See Anderson v. Post, 38 S.W. 283, 286 App. of Tenn., June 13, 1896, affirmed by Supreme Court September 26, 1896); City of Nashville v. Cowan, 10 Lea (Tenn.) 209, 215; T......