Fox v. Coon

• Decision Date: 07 March 1887
• Citation: 1 So. 629,64 Miss. 465
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: GEORGE H. FOX ET AL. v. ALBERT COON ET AL

1 So. 629

64 Miss. 465

GEORGE H. FOX ET AL. v. ALBERT COON ET AL

Supreme Court of Mississippi

March 7, 1887

APPEAL from the Chancery Court of Lawrence County, HON. T. B GRAHAM, Chancellor.

Charles H. Fox died in 1862 leaving a widow, now Mrs. Amanda M Smith, and several heirs. Certain land now in controversy was set aside to the widow, who is still alive, as her dower. In 1876 she failed to pay the taxes on this land and it was forfeited to the State. In 1880 Robert N. Fox, one of the heirs of Charles H. Fox, deceased, acquired the State's title. He then executed a deed of trust upon the land in favor of Albert Coon, who in 1886 caused the trustee to sell the land, which was purchased by W. W. Fox, but not an heir of Charles H. Fox, deceased, and he went into possession.

Robert N. Fox having died, George H. Fox and the other heirs of Charles H. Fox, deceased, obtained a quit-claim deed from the widow, Mrs. Smith, and exhibited their bill against Albert Coon and W. W. Fox to have the deed from Robert N. Fox to Coon and the deed from the trustee in the deed of trust in favor of Coon to W. W. Fox cancelled, as casting a cloud upon complainants' title, also to have the land sold and the proceeds divided among the several heirs.

The defendants demurred, and the Chancellor sustained the demurrer and dismissed the bill. The complainants appealed.

Decree reversed and cause remanded.

A. C McNair, for the appellants.

Was Robert N. Fox, precluded from purchasing from the State--or to put it more correctly, did his purchase from the State operate as a redemption of the land from the tax-sale?--Robert N. Fox was certainly under as great an obligation, legal or moral, to pay the tax as the complainants, or Mrs. Smith. If so, his purchase was but a redemption from the tax-sale. Freeman on Cotenancy and Partition (2d edition), § 158; Day v. Cochran, 24 Miss. 261; McGee v. Holmes, 63 Miss. 50.

Although the State obtained by its purchase an absolute title, Robert N. Fox, being a tenant in common with the complainants, by his purchase redeemed the land from the State, and the appellees obtained by their purchase only his interest. Fox was under a legal or moral obligation to pay the tax, and he could not, by neglecting to pay the same and allowing the land to be sold in consequence of such neglect, add to or strengthen his title by purchasing from the State, which purchased at the sale by the tax collector. I am aware that in Pennsylvania a contrary doctrine is held. But the decisions of the California court are in keeping with the principle asserted here, and are the sounder, and more in consonance with reason and justice. Freeman on Cotenancy and Partition, § 159 (2d edition); Mass v. Shear, 25 Cal. 45; Coppinger v. Rice, 33 Cal. 425.

R. H Thompson, for the appellees.

1. The State acquired a title and could sell to whom it pleased, and certainly its title is good in the hands of innocent purchasers, parties not charged with notice of the matters of fact relied upon to avoid the title.

2. Robert N. Fox, the purchaser from the State, certainly acquired title to the life estate of the widow.

The opinion in the case No. 3440, George B. Lenoir and L. A Bridges et al., delivered 28th of February, 1881, is conclusive of the question: That was a suit to confirm a tax-title. It was objected that our statute authorizing confirmations applied only to confirmations of...