Emerson v. Voight
| Decision Date | 02 May 1938 |
| Docket Number | 4-5001 |
| Parties | EMERSON v. VOIGHT |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Cross Chancery Court; A. L. Hutchins, Chancellor affirmed.
Decree affirmed.
J. C Brookfield, for appellant.
Walter N. Killough, for appellee.
On September 30, 1936, appellee brought suit in the chancery court of Cross county against appellants to cancel a state tax deed to the northeast quarter, section 10, township 6 north, range 3 east, containing 160 acres, and the east half of the northwest quarter, section 10, township 6 north, range 3 east, containing 40 acres, in said county, executed by the Commissioner of State Lands to appellants for $ 200 which was forfeited to the state for the nonpayment of the taxes in 1931.
It was alleged in the complaint that the tax forfeiture was void for various reasons, and, among others, that there had been no legal publication of the notice of sale.
It was further alleged that appellee offered to pay appellants the amount of taxes they had paid and improvements they had made on the said lands, but appellants refused to state what taxes they had paid or the amount of improvements they had made thereon, saying that their tax deed was valid and they expected to hold possession of the land.
They filed an answer denying the invalidity of the tax deed, but prayed in the alternative that if their tax deed was canceled and redemption decreed they have judgment for the total taxes due the state of $ 483.83 and $ 275 for the improvements they had made after receiving their deed from the state.
Upon a hearing of the cause the chancery court found that the tax deed was void, canceled same, awarded possession of the land to appellee, offset the taxes and improvements against the rental value of the land for the years 1935 and 1936, and refused to give either a money judgment and adjudged that each pay his own costs, from which is this appeal.
Appellee purchased the land from the American Investment Company, a corporation, the owner thereof, on November 18, 1935. Appellants leased the land from the American Investment Company in 1931, 1932, 1933, 1934 and 1935, under written leases, which provided for cultivation of thirteen acres in cotton, twenty acres in corn, ditches to be kept cleaned out by tenant, payment of one-fourth of the cotton and one-third of all grain raised, and payment of $ 5 per acre on all land then in cultivation which tenant failed to cultivate, and agreement to surrender peaceable possession of said lands to said company on the 31st day of December of the year for which the respective leases were made. They paid the rents for the years 1931, 1932, 1933 and 1934, but refused to pay rent for 1935, claiming ownership under the tax deed and remained in possession without paying any rent until this suit was brought and a writ of possession was issued against them.
The jurisdictional defect in the forfeiture and sale of the land alleged in the complaint as to publication is sustained by the evidence, and the court properly canceled the tax deed. The clerk of the county court testified that he had never received any proof of the publication of the delinquent list, and that proof of the publication of the notice of sale had never been filed in his office, and that there was nothing in his office to show the time and manner of publication except a copy of a local newspaper dated and published June 2, 1932, and witness did not know whether this was the only publication of the notice, but was of opinion that it was the first publication, and that the publication of the delinquent list was nearly...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wilcox v. Westerheide
...69 S.D. 381, 10 N.W.2d 757; Weller v. Platt, 33 S.D. 509, 146 N.W. 705; Kester v. Bostwick, 153 Fla. 437, 15 So.2d 201; Emerson v. Voigt, 196 Ark. 129, 116 S.W.2d 348; Flanagan v. Land Development Co., 145 La. 843, 83 So. 39; Westwego Canal & Terminal Co. v. Pitre, 195 La. 107, 196 So. 36; ......
-
Berry v. Davidson
... ... nor is there any doubt that the requirement of the law as to ... publication of notice was mandatory. See Emerson v ... Voight, 196 Ark. 129, 116 S.W.2d 348; Union Bank & Trust Co. v. Horne, 195 Ark. 481, 113 S.W.2d ... 1091; Hirsch and Schuman v. Dabbs and ... ...
-
Wilcox v. Westerheide
...69 S.D. 381, 10 N.W.2d 757; Weller v. Platt, 33 S.D. 509, 146 N.W. 705; Kester v. Bostwick, 153 Fla. 437, 15 So.2d 201; Emerson v. Voigt, 196 Ark. 129, 116 S.W.2d 348; Flanagan v. Land Development Co., 145 La. 843, So. 39; Westwego Canal & Terminal Co. v. Pitre, 195 La. 107, 196 So. 36; Aba......
-
Berry v. Davidson, 4-5668.
...wholly ignored, nor is there any doubt that the requirement of the law as to publication of notice was mandatory. See Emerson v. Voight, 196 Ark. 129, 116 S.W.2d 348; Union Bank & Trust Co. v. Horne, 195 Ark. 481, 113 S.W.2d 1091; Hirsch and Schuman v. Dabbs and Mivelaz, 197 Ark. 756, 126 S......