DICK V. FORAKER
Decision Date | 17 December 1894 |
Citation | 155 U. S. 404 |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED
STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
The Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Arkansas has jurisdiction of a suit in equity, brought by a citizen of Ohio against a citizen of Illinois, to remove a cloud from the title to real estate situated in that district.
Without the statutory notice required by the Arkansas statute of March 12, 1881, No. 39, in proceedings for the fixing of tax liens for unpaid taxes upon lands in the state, and the sale of the lands for the nonpayment thereof, the court can take no jurisdiction, and all proceedings therein are void, and the fact that the state appeared in such a suit where that notice had not been given did not give the court jurisdiction, or render the sale valid.
Action by Joseph B. Foraker against George F. Dick to remove a cloud from his title. Judgment for complainant, and defendant appeals.
The appellee, a citizen of the State of Ohio, brought his complaint in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Arkansas against the appellant, a citizen of the State of Illinois. The bill sought to remove a cloud from a title held by complainant, and charged in substance that under an act of the Legislature of Arkansas approved March 12, 1881, and an act amendatory thereof, approved March 22, 1881, a decree was rendered in the Ashley County Circuit Court directing the sale of certain lands for the purpose of realizing taxes due upon them; that under this decree, a sale was made on September 15, 1884, by a commissioner of the court; that at said sale, the complainant became a purchaser of the property, a description of which was given in the bill; that the proceedings as well as the sale were in accordance with the statute; that the lands thus purchased were not redeemed as prescribed by law and accordingly the court ordered the commissioner to execute a deed therefor, which the commissioner did on May 15, 1887, and the deed was recorded in the proper office; that after this purchase, the defendant (appellant here) purchased through the Commissioner of Lands of the State of Arkansas the said lands from the state, as forfeited for the nonpayment of taxes; that the commissioner wrongfully, and without authority of law, and in disregard of the rights of complainant, executed deeds for the lands to the defendant, which deeds were recorded, and, taken all together, purport to convey all of the land purchased by the complainant under the previous sale to him; that the deeds thus executed to the defendant, while they convey no title, constitute a cloud upon the complainant's title, and their appearance upon the record impairs the value of his property. The bill, moreover, averred that the land was vacant, and in the actual possession of neither complainant nor defendant. The prayer of the bill was that the deeds made to the defendant be cancelled, and that the complainant's title to said land be quieted as against the defendant and all claimants under him. The defendant demurred to the jurisdiction of the court and, upon the overruling of his demurrer, answered, averring the validity of the sale made him by the commissioner of lands and claiming that the sales to the complainant under the proceedings in the Ashley County Court were absolutely void because there was no law authorizing them, because the court had no jurisdiction of the subject matter, and because of fatal irregularities in the proceedings themselves. The court below decreed in favor of the complainant. From this decree, the cause was brought here on appeal.
The defendant's title is derived from a sale made by the Commissioner of Lands of the State of Arkansas, treating the lands as forfeited to the state, this sale having been made subsequent to the proceedings upon which the complainant relied as his muniment of title.
The statutory provisions authorizing the proceedings upon which complainant's title rests are found in the Laws of Arkansas of 1881, page 64, Act of March 12, 1881, No. 39, and read as follows:
In order to make out his case, the complainant offered the record of the proceedings in the Ashley County Circuit Court, from which his title took its origin. The record as offered is in a very imperfect state, but it appears therefrom that on May 4, 1884, on the relation of W. H. Arnold, a bill was filed which, after setting out the above provisions of Arkansas law, substantially averred that upon certain lands described in an exhibit annexed, certain taxes had been extended which were past due and other taxes had been extended which were unauthorized by law; that in pursuance of a warrant for the collection of taxes on these lands, the collector had demanded both the lawful and the unlawful taxes, and neither were paid, and the lands were returned as delinquent and were forfeited and sold to the state for the taxes for which they had been respectively so returned; that the forfeiture and sale to the state were void because unlawful taxes had been extended against the land, and also on account of many other irregularities; that hence the State of Arkansas had no valid title to any of the tracts, but notwithstanding this fact, the state land commissioner had conveyed part of the land standing in the name of the state to such persons as had applied to purchase, and would convey the balance thereof unless the forfeiture was annulled.
This complaint as printed in the record is not complete. It contains no prayer, but the following memorandum is at the foot thereof:
Annexed to the bill is a list of lands, containing, among others, those which are claimed by the complainant. There is also the following entry in the record:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Louisville & N.R. Co.
... ... provisions of the Acts of 1875 and 1888; Greeley v ... Lowe, 155 U.S. 58, 72, 15 Sup.Ct. 24, 39 L.Ed. 69; ... Dick v. Foraker, 155 U.S. 404, 15 Sup.Ct. 124, 39 ... L.Ed. 201; Citizens' Saving Co. v. Ill. Cent ... R.R., 205 U.S. 46, 27 Sup.Ct. 425, 51 L.Ed ... ...
-
Texas Co. v. Central Fuel Oil Co.
... ... [194 F. 9] ... of citizenship exists, is well settled ... Greeley ... v. Lowe, 155 U.S. 58, 15 Sup.Ct. 24, 39 L.Ed. 69; ... Dick v. Foraker, 155 U.S. 404, 15 Sup.Ct. 124, 39 ... L.Ed. 201. For these reasons, the court below erred in ... sustaining the special pleas of the ... ...
- Kelley v. Laconia Levee District
-
Kansas City Southern Railway Company v. McGinty
...S. W. Moore and Read & McDonough, for appellant. The court erred in overruling the petition as amended for removal to the Federal court. 155 U.S. 404; 67 Ark. 295; 61 F. 122 F. 588; 123 F. 827; 158 U.S. 41; 160 U.S. 77; 119 U.S. 473; 140 U.S. 406; 151 U.S. 685; 121 U.S. 421; 169 U.S. 101; 1......