Carlisle v. Goode

• Decision Date: 22 January 1894
• Citation: 15 So. 119,71 Miss. 453
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: GEORGE W. CARLISLE v. BURTON GOODE

15 So. 119

71 Miss. 453

GEORGE W. CARLISLE v. BURTON GOODE

Supreme Court of Mississippi

January 22, 1894

FROM the chancery court of Jackson county, HON. W. T. HOUSTON Chancellor.

Appellee Burton Goode, filed a bill against George W. Carlisle, the appellant, seeking to cancel a tax-title acquired by the latter, March 30, 1892, alleging that the land was sold in March, 1891, for the taxes of 1890, and purchased by the state, and by the auditor of public accounts conveyed to defendant. The bill alleges, among other things, that the assessment under which the taxes were claimed to be due, and upon which the sale for taxes was based, was void, because the assessment-roll of 1889 was filed on the nineteenth day of July, 1889, instead of on the first Monday of July, as required by § 499, code 1880.

The defendant demurred to the bill, the main ground of demurrer being that, before the filing of the bill, the assessmerit was validated and legalized by the act of March 5, 1892. (Laws, p. 26.) The demurrer was overruled, and, defendant declining to further plead or answer, there was a decree for complainant canceling the tax-title, and from this defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

Nugent & Mc Willie, for appellant.

Section 499, code 1880, does not require the filing of the roll, but its delivery to the clerk on or before the first Monday of July. In Stovall v. Connor, 58 Miss. 138, it was held that the failure to present the assessment-roll to the board of supervisors, as required, made it void. See also Fletcher v. Thewalla, 60 Miss. 963; Tierney v Brown, 67 Ib., 109.

For all that appears in this case, the roll may have been delivered. If so, the mere fact that it was not filed or so marked would not affect the tax-title.

The assessment, if void, was cured by the act of 1892. Whether this act applies must depend on whether there was any vested right invaded. We submit that legislative power to validate assessments does not depend upon the time at which it is exercised. The tax-payer has no vested right in the irregular act of the assessor. The power existed, and the delinquent tax-payer was affected with notice that it might at any time be exercised in the public interest. 11 Pac. R., 402; 29 Ind. 533; Black on Tax-titles, §§ 271, 272; 36 Hum., 24.

The constitutional provision as to due process of law has no application to laws in relation to taxation and the public revenue. 95 U.S. 40; 96 Ib., 97.

In this state curative statutes have been upheld with singular consistency. Nevin v. Bailey, 62 Miss. 433; Gibson v. Berry, 66 Ib., 515; Sigman v. Lundy, Ib., 522; Patterson v. Durfey, 68 Ib., 779; Cole v. Coon, 70 Ib., 634. See also Grenada v. Brogden, 112 U.S. 261.

C. H. Wood, for appellee.

The failure to file the assessment-roll on or before the day fixed by law rendered the sale for taxes void. Carlisle v. Yoder, 69 Miss. 384; Carlisle v. Chrestman, Ib., 392. The tax-payer must have an opportunity to comply with the requirements of law, and the state, not he, must be the actor. Dingey v. Paxton, 60 Miss. 1038. The curative act of 1892 cannot affect previous sales.

OPINION

WOODS, J.

The failure of the assessor to file his land assessment-roll until the nineteenth day of July, 1889, was fatal to its validity. The verbal refinements which may be employed in any attempt to distinguish the deliveryto the clerk of the board of supervisors of a completed and certified assessment-roll, verified by the prescribed affidavit by the assessor, on the day appointed by law, from the filing of such roll by the proper officer on the appointed day, cannot be permitted to prevail. The filing of the roll is simply the evidence of the completion certification and delivery by the assessor to the...