Goodrum v. Ayers

• Decision Date: 16 April 1892
• Citation: 19 S.W. 97
• Parties: GOODRUM <I>et al.</I> v. AYERS.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Page 97

19 S.W. 97

GOODRUM et al. v. AYERS.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

April 16, 1892.

Appeal from Lonoke chancery court; DAVID W. CARROLL, Chancellor.

Action by E. D. Ayers against J. C. Goodrum and J. W. Williams to annul certain tax-deeds, and to quiet plaintiff's title. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Atkinson & England, for appellants. P. C. Dooley, for appellee.

HEMINGWAY, J.

Conceding that the plaintiff was not in possession of the land, and for that reason could not maintain a suit to quiet title, it cannot avail the appellant, for he filed a cross-bill seeking to quiet his own title, and it gave the court jurisdiction of the entire controversy. Radcliffe v. Scruggs, 46 Ark. 96.

Although the plaintiff's grantors conveyed the lands to the railway company before making the deed to plaintiff, he alleged, and the railway admitted, that the conveyance contained a limitation, by the terms of which the title had reverted before the execution of his deed; and this is conclusive of that fact, and presents the plaintiff's claim just as though the deed to the railway had never been executed.

If the defendant ever held such possession under his tax-deed as put the statute of limitations in operation, it was taken less than two years before the bringing of this suit, and would not bar the right of a disseised owner. Mansf. Dig. § 4475.

The tax-titles are assailed upon several grounds, of which one is that the sales were made to satisfy costs not chargeable upon the land. As it is decisive of the case, we have not considered the others relied upon. The sales were made in 1877 and 1878, and their validity is to be determined by the law then in force. By an act approved March 5, 1875, it was made the duty of the county clerk to attend all tax-sales, and make a record thereof, describing the several tracts sold, and stating, among other things, the amount of the tax, penalty, and costs due thereon. It appears from the clerk's record of the sales relied upon that each tract of the land in suit was sold for an amount including 85 cents for costs. The plaintiff contends that the several tracts were legally chargeable with 35 cents, and the excess of 50 cents was an illegal charge; while the defendant contends that 85 cents was legally chargeable, and furnishes an itemized statement aggregating that sum, and, as he claims, made up of items properly charged upon the land. The items are as follows:

                Making certificate of purchase ................... 25 cents
                Making copies for the printer ....................  5   "
                Attending sales and making records ............... 10   "
                Transferring land to the name of the purchaser ... 10   "
                Advertising each tract ........................... 25   "
                Collector, for each tract sold ................... 10   "
                                                                   __
                     Total

...