Bains Bros. Inv. Co. v. Walthall

• Decision Date: 28 November 1912
• Parties: BAINS BROS. INV. CO. v. WALTHALL ET AL.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

60 So. 142

180 Ala. 45

BAINS BROS. INV. CO. v. WALTHALL ET AL.

Supreme Court of Alabama

November 28, 1912

Appeal from Chancery Court, Jefferson County; A. H. Benners Chancellor.

Bill by R. E. Walthall and H. C. House against the Bains Bros Investment Company to redeem land from tax sale. From a decree overruling demurrer to the bill, and granting the relief prayed, respondents appeal. Affirmed.

The bill alleges that the complainants are the owners of and in possession of certain lots in the city of Birmingham, which on December 4, 1909, were sold by the chancery court of Jefferson county for the city taxes due the city of North Birmingham, and that respondents became the purchasers at said sale at and for the sum of $17.80. It is further averred that complainants have tendered respondents the sum of $20.40, for the purpose of redeeming said property, which has been refused. They submit themselves to the jurisdiction of the court, ask for redemption, and pray that all title estate, and interest to said real estate be divested out of the funds and invested in complainants. The demurrers set up an adequate remedy at law, that the amount is less than $50 and the failure to prove the amount due for taxes for the year 1910.

Z. T. Rudolph, of Birmingham, for appellants.

Gregg & Burrow, of Birmingham, for appellee.

DOWDELL C.J.

The bill in this case is for redemption of land under tax sale. The remedy given for redemption under sections 1328, 1329, of the Code of 1907, is not exclusive, and does not take away the remedy by bill in chancery in such cases. The bill being one for redemption of land, the amount involved is not the test of jurisdiction of the chancery court. The demurrer to the bill was properly overruled.

The only other question presented is one of fact. The weight of the testimony, we think, both as to the offer to redeem and the sufficiency of the amount tendered, was in favor of the complainant, and such was the finding of the chancellor. The respondent had not assessed the property for taxes for the year 1910, when the offer to redeem was made, and it would be inequitable to allow the purchaser to defeat a redemption by subsequently giving in the property for assessment in his name. The purchaser was not the owner of the property on the 1st day of October, 1909, the beginning of the tax year 1909-10, and therefore no personal liability rested on the purchaser as owner at the...