Doyle v. Martin

• Decision Date: 25 October 1891
• Citation: 17 S.W. 346
• Parties: DOYLE <I>et al.</I> v. MARTIN.<SMALL><SUP>1</SUP></SMALL>
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

17 S.W. 346

DOYLE et al. v. MARTIN.¹

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

October 25, 1891.

Appeal from circuit court, Pulaski county; JOSEPH W. MARTIN, Judge.

Action by R. W. Martin against W. D. Holtzman and Moses Dixon and Henry W. Long for possession of land. Long having died, the action was revived against Thomas Doyle, as his administrator with will annexed, and Julia M. Long, his devisee. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Sol. F. Clark, for appellants. Ratcliffe & Fletcher, for appellee.

STATEMENT BY THE COURT. Martin brought this action in the Pulaski circuit court against W. D. Holtzman and Moses Dixon to recover the N. ½ of the N. E. ¼ of the S. W. ¼ of section 8, in township 1 N., in range 11 W. He claimed to be the owner of the land by virtue of a deed executed to him on the 7th day of January, 1887, by the commissioner of state lands, and made the deed an exhibit to his complaint.

It is stated in the deed that a decree was rendered by the Pulaski chancery court against this land, condemning it to be sold on the 2d of November, 1883, on account of the non-payment of taxes charged against it, that it was offered for sale on the day appointed, and stricken off to the state, and certified to the commissioner of state lands; and that, not having been redeemed within the time prescribed by law, it had been purchased of the state by Martin. After these recitals, the commissioner then conveyed by the deed to Martin all the right, title, claim, and interest of the state of Arkansas in and to the land above described.

Henry W. Long, claiming to be the owner of a part of the land sued for, was made a defendant in the action. He filed an answer in which he claimed to have four defenses against the action, which are, substantially, as follows:

(1) He is the owner of a portion of the land in controversy, and caused the same to be assessed and taxed by metes and bounds, and paid the taxes charged against it for every year since 1875, including the taxes of 1880 and 1881. Under the description of the N. ½ of the N. E. ¼ of the S. W. ¼ of section 8, in township 1 N., in range 11 W., it was, with other land, placed upon the assessment tax books of 1880 the second time, and was returned delinquent but not sold; and under the same description was put on the assessment and tax books of 1881 for the second time, and was again returned delinquent, notwithstanding it had been separately assessed and taxed by metes and bounds, and he had paid the taxes charged against it by such metes and bounds for said years 1880 and 1881, before it was returned delinquent. After this, on the 14th of October, 1882, proceedings were instituted against the N. ½ of the N. E. ¼ of the S. W. ¼ of section 8, in township 1 N., in range 11 W., under an act of the general assembly entitled "An act to enforce the payment of overdue taxes," approved March 12, 1881, to enforce the payment of the taxes charged against it for the years 1880 and 1881. A decree was rendered against it in such proceedings, on the 9th day of July, 1883, condemning it to be sold for such taxes on the 2d day of November, 1883. After notice of the sale was first given by publication, the land was offered for sale, and, no one offering to purchase, was struck off to the state; and, having been certified to the commissioner of state lands, was subsequently sold to Martin, as stated in his complaint.

(2) There was no proper notice of the proceedings instituted under the act of March 12, 1881, "designating the land by any proper description so that" Long "could know that his lands were being proceeded against," given. The description by which it was assessed the second time, and returned delinquent, was a false and fraudulent description. The land had been assessed and taxes had been charged against it "by and under a different and true description," and all the taxes assessed against it had been paid according to such description.

(3) The general assembly, on the 26th day of January, 1883, extended the time for paying the taxes of 1880 and 1881 until the 20th of April, 1883, and forbade all proceedings for the recovery of such taxes in the mean time, and provided that, if such taxes were not paid within the time allowed, they should be collected in the manner prescribed by law. In pursuance of the act extending the time of payment, the land, described as it was when assessed the second time, and returned delinquent, was again put on the tax-books for the purpose of collecting the taxes charged against it for the years 1880 and 1881, as well as the taxes of 1882; and, the taxes and penalty not having been paid, was again returned delinquent, but was not sold under the general revenue act. In the mean time, on the 17th day of February, 1883, the act of March 12, 1881, was repealed.

(4) The land sued for has never been conveyed by deed to the state, and the sale on the 2d of November, 1883, was not confirmed by the court after two years from the day of sale had expired.

Asking that his answer be taken as a cross-bill, and that the proceedings of the court condemning his land to be sold for taxes, and the deed of the commissioner of state lands to Martin, be declared null and void, and set aside, he prayed that this action be transferred to the chancery court.

The defendant Long having died leaving a last will and testament, whereby he devised the land in controversy to Julia M. Long, this action was revived, by consent of all the parties, against Thomas Doyle, as his administrator with the will annexed, and Julia M. Long, his devisee. Plaintiff demurred to the answer. The demurrer was sustained by the court, and...