Chestnut v. Harris

• Decision Date: 15 January 1898
• Citation: 43 S.W. 977
• Parties: CHESTNUT v. HARRIS et al.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

43 S.W. 977

CHESTNUT v. HARRIS et al.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

January 15, 1898.

Appeal from circuit court, Drew county; Marcus L. Hawkins, Judge.

Action by M. F. Chestnut against Bashie Harris and others. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

Z. T. Wood, for appellant. Wells & Williamson, for appellees.

BATTLE, J.

An action was brought by appellant against appellees in the Drew circuit court, to recover possession of the N. E. ¼ of the S. E. ¼ of section 24, in township 13 S., and in range 7 W., containing 40 acres. He claimed by virtue of a sale thereof by a collector of revenue for the taxes assessed against the same for the year 1891. Appellees disputed the validity of the sale on two grounds: (1) Because the description of the land in the assessment and in the notice of sale is insufficient; and (2) because it was sold for too much cost.

The issues in the case were tried upon an agreed statement of facts. It was admitted that the land was described in the assessment list as follows:

                ================================================================
                                   Township 13, Range 7
                -----------------|-----------------|------------|---------------
                Owner's Name     |  Parts of Sec.  |  Section   |  No. of Acres
                -----------------|-----------------|------------|---------------
                Bashie Harris.   |  N. E. S. E.    |    24.     |     40
                ----------------------------------------------------------------
                

And in the notice of the sale of delinquent lands as follows:

                ================================================================
                Owner's Name   | Parts of Sec. | Sec. | Township | R. | No. of
                               |               |      |          |    | Acres
                ---------------|---------------|------|----------|----|---------
                Bashie Harris. |  N. E. S. E.  | 24.  |    13.   | 7. |  40
                ----------------------------------------------------------------
                

It was also admitted that it was sold for the taxes of 1891 and penalty, and for 60 cents costs, which included a fee of 10 cents of the county clerk for attending the sale, and 5 cents for furnishing the printer with a description of it in the list of delinquent lands advertised for sale.

Upon this statement of facts, the court held that the sale was void, because the description of the land in the assessment and in the notice of sale was insufficient, and rendered judgment in favor of the appellee. Did the court err?

The statutes of this state provide that each tract or lot of real property shall be so described in the assessment thereof for taxation as to identify and distinguish it from any other tracts or parts of tracts; and that the same shall be described, if practicable, according to section or subdivisions thereof and congressional townships. They recognize the survey of the United States, and...