Buckner v. Sugg

• Decision Date: 25 June 1906
• Citation: 96 S.W. 184
• Parties: BUCKNER v. SUGG et al.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

96 S.W. 184

BUCKNER v. SUGG et al.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

June 25, 1906.

Appeal from Mississippi Chancery Court, Osceola District; Edward D. Robertson, Chancellor.

Action by H. A. Sugg and others against George Buckner. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendant appeals. Reversed, with directions to dismiss the complaint.

The plaintiffs, H. A. Sugg and others, are the owners of fractional section 7, township 15 N. range 13 E., in Mississippi county, containing 358 acres, as shown by the original government survey, and borders upon Buford's Lake, a body of water meandered and platted upon said public survey. The land in controversy was formerly within the bed of said lake, which became uncovered many years ago by gradual recession of the waters, and is claimed by the owners of said section 7 by virtue of their riparian rights as owners of the adjoining lands. If the lines of the public survey had been extended so as to embrace this land it would be properly described, according to said survey, as the south half of section 12 in township 15 north, range 12 east. For more than 20 years prior to the commencement of this suit it has been commonly known and designated by that description and in the year 1893 the lines thereof were run and established by the county surveyor. It was regularly assessed for levee taxes of the St. Francis levee district under the description named above (S. ½ of section 12, township 15 N., range 12 E.), and in 1897 was sold for levee taxes under that description by a commissioner of the chancery court under the decree of that court foreclosing the tax lien of the levee district. The defendant, George Buckner, claims title to said land under said sale, and the plaintiffs brought this suit in equity against the defendant to cancel said claim as a cloud upon their title to said section 7, and the land in controversy joined thereto by reliction. The complaint alleges that the S. ½ of section 12 was sold under a levee decree rendered in 1897 for the levee taxes of 1895 to J. T. Lasley, and by him conveyed to the defendant, George Buckner, and that the assessment for levee taxes and decree based thereon are void, because the land was "unsurveyed land lying within Buford's Lake, and was not subject to levee taxes nor taxation of any kind." The defendant made answer admitting that he claimed title to said land under said decree and sale for levee taxes, and alleging that said decree and sale were in all respects regular and valid, and that the title to said land passed thereunder to the purchaser at said sale. During the progress of the suit all the owners of the other lands fronting on Buford's Lake, as originally meandered, were brought in as parties. Upon final hearing of the cause a decree was rendered declaring said sale for levee taxes to be void and cancelling the defendant's said claim of title thereunder as a cloud upon the titles of the owners of the lands fronting on the lake. The defendant appealed to this court.

Rose & Coleman, for appellant. Driver & Harrison, for appellees.

McCULLOCH, J. (after stating the facts).

Appellant contends that the sole question raised by the pleadings is that the land in controversy was not subject to taxation because it "was unsurveyed land lying within Buford's Lake." The complaint sets forth all the facts concerning the location, etc., of the land, and therefore presents for our consideration not only the question just stated, but also the further one now insisted upon by appellees, that the description of the land was so imperfect that the assessment and sale were void.

The first-named question is easily disposed of in favor of the validity of the assessment and sale by reference merely to the fact that the land was private property, even though unsurveyed, and was, under the statutes of the state, subject to state and county taxes as well as levee taxes. The statute provides that "all property whether real or personal, in this state," except certain kinds which are declared to be exempt, shall be subject to taxation. Kirby's Dig. § 6873. The act creating the St. Francis levee district provides that all lands situated within the district shall be subject to levee taxes. Act Feb. 15, 1893, p. 29, § 7. Was the description sufficiently certain and definite to put the owner of the land on notice and authorize a valid assessment and sale? It is well settled not only by the decisions of this court, but by the adjudged cases in the courts of other states as far as we can discover, that, in order to make a valid assessment and sale of land for taxes, the land must be described with certainty upon the assessment rolls, and in all subsequent proceedings for the enforcement of payment of the tax. The chief reason for this requirement is that the owner may have information of the charge upon his property. It has sometimes been said that a description that would be sufficient in a conveyance between individuals would generally be sufficient in assessments for taxation. We do not, however, consider that a safe test. The description in tax proceedings must be such...