Gavin v. Ashworth

• Citation: 91 S.W. 303
• Parties: GAVIN v. ASHWORTH et al.
• Decision Date: 09 December 1905
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Page 303

91 S.W. 303

GAVIN v. ASHWORTH et al.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

December 9, 1905.

Appeal from Circuit Court, St. Francis County; H. N. Hutton, Judge.

Action by Mrs. M. A. Gavin against Alfred Ashworth and another. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Mrs. Gavin was the owner of land in St. Francis county, Ark. In 1895 W. R. Kendrick, as collector, for and in behalf of the board of directors of the St. Francis levee district, brought an action in the chancery court of St. Francis county to recover levee taxes alleged to be due on the land. In June, 1895, the court rendered a decree declaring the taxes to be due on the land and ordering the land sold to pay the same. The land was, on July 6, 1895, sold by the clerk and commissioner of the court under this decree, and purchased by Alfred and Samuel Ashworth. This sale was duly reported to the court and confirmed on the 28th day of September following. Afterwards, in November of same year, Mrs. Gavin, the former owner of the land, attempted to redeem the land, and paid the amount of taxes due thereon to the commissioner who sold the land. But the purchasers at the sale took possession of the land in 1896, and put a fence around a portion of it, and have since been in possession of it. In 1901 they procured a deed from the commissioner who made the sale, conveying the land to them. But this deed was executed after the term of office of the commissioner had expired and was never approved by the court. In February, 1902, Mrs. Gavin brought this action against the defendants, Alfred and Samuel Ashworth, purchasers at the sale under the decree, to recover possession of the land. The defendants for defense set up the title acquired by their purchase at the sale under the decree and the deed from the commissioner. They also pleaded the five-year statute of limitations applicable to those holding under judicial sales. On the trial the court held that the plaintiff could not recover, instructed the jury to return a verdict for defendant, and gave judgment accordingly. Plaintiff appealed.

N. W. Norton, for appellant. S. H. Mann, for appellees.

RIDDICK, J. (after stating the facts).

This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of defendants in an action of ejectment. The evidence showed that the defendants purchased the land at a sale under a valid decree rendered against the land, condemning it to be sold for the payment of levee taxes. The sale was duly confirmed. Afterwards ...