Gunn v. Thompson
| Decision Date | 21 June 1902 |
| Citation | 69 S.W. 261,70 Ark. 500 |
| Parties | GUNN v. THOMPSON |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Monroe Chancery Court, JOHN M. ELLIOTT, Chancellor.
Affirmed.
STATEMENT BY THE COURT.
Simon Thompson was the owner of lot No. 4, in block 25, in the town of Brinkley. He had purchased the lot from one Goodwin, who had put him in possession, and had also attempted to convey the lot to him, but by mistake had conveyed him lot No. 4, in block 24, instead of the lot he had sold him. Thompson, being an ignorant negro, unable to read, did not discover the mistake. The land was properly assessed in the name of Thompson, and when the taxes for 1893 became due he went to the collector, and correctly designated to him the lot upon which he wished to pay, but, being ignorant of the fact that the lot was not correctly described in the deed to him from Goodrich, he also exhibited this deed to the collector. The collector did not make out the tax receipt for the lot as described by Thompson, but followed, instead, that given in the deed, which, as before stated, was incorrect. Thompson being ignorant of the mistake, made no attempt to have it corrected, and the lot was afterwards advertised as delinquent, sold for the nonpayment of taxes, and purchased by James Gunn, Jr. Gunn in due time received a deed to the land, and brought an action of ejectment to recover the land. Thompson for answer alleged that he had offered to pay taxes on the lot in controversy, but that through mistake of the collector the taxes were credited on another lot not owned by him. The case was transferred to the equity docket, and on the hearing the chancellor gave judgment in favor of Thompson, and Gunn appealed.
Judgment affirmed.
C. F Greenlee, for appellant.
Redemption is a statutory right, and, in extenuation of failure to redeem within the prescribed time, only fraud of those upon whom the owner had a right to rely can be heard. Cooley, Tax 541; Black, Tax Tit. § 362. There are no exceptions in favor of infants, except by statute. 53 Ark. 418; Sand. & H. Dig., § 6615. The costs for which the tract was sold were not excessive. 61 Ark. 414. The sale was valid. Sand. & H. Dig., § 6633.
M. J. Manning, for appellee.
Equity has jurisdiction to set aside tax deeds resulting from fraudulent conduct of taxing officers. 54 N.W. 1013. Such deeds will not pass title to the purchaser. Sand. & H. Dig., § 6614; 34 F. 709. The owner of land has the right to presume that the clerk has done his duty. Cooley, Tax. 532-540; Black, Tax Tit. 52; 106 U.S. 196. 52 Pa.St. 315; 44 Ia. 628; 24 Pa.St. 452; 57 Pa.St. 40; 36 N.Y. 150; 100 Ill. 218. The rule of caveat emptor applies to purchasers of tax titles. Cooley, Tax. (2d Ed.), 475-553. Desty, Tax. 850. The charges against the property were excessive and illegal. 61 Ark. 36; 18 P. 300; 20 P. 15; 21 P. 87; Black, Tax Tit. § 235.
RIDDICK, J., (after stating the facts.)
The question presented by this appeal relates to the validity of a tax sale under which the plaintiff, Gunn, claims to be the owner of the lot in controversy. The defendant, Thompson, who was the owner at the time of the tax sale, paid the taxes on the lot, but through a mistake the taxes were credited to another lot not owned by him. The case, then, turns on the question as to whether this mistake was the fault of Thompson or the collector of taxes.
Thompson testified as follows: "I went," he said, He goes on then to say that the first intimation he had that anything was wrong was after the time for redemption had expired. Under the evidence, as it appears in the record, the chancellor might have found that the defendant at the time he paid the taxes told the officer that he wished to pay on lot 4, block 25, and that officer, after looking at the deed exhibited by the defendant, concluded that he wished to pay on the land as described in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Meserole v. Whitney
... ... 576, 78 N.E. 302; Graham v ... Florida Land & Mortgage Co., 33 Fla. 356, 14 So. 796; ... Bosworth v. Danzien, 25 Cal. 297; Gunn v ... Thompson, 70 Ark. 500, 69 S.W. 261; Lewis v ... Monson, 151 U.S. 545, 14 S.Ct. 424, 38 L.Ed. 265; ... Richter v. Bcaumont, 67 Miss ... ...
-
Knauff v. National Cooperage & Woodenware Company
...is not sufficient to show either payment or a bona fide attempt to pay the taxes on the land in question for the year 1902. 35 Ark. 505; 70 Ark. 500. Unless it is shown that appellee was prevented from paying the taxes by the mistake of the collector, the recital in appellant's tax deed tha......
-
Price v. Gunn
...list and description of his real estate for that purpose. The facts bring this case within the rule heretofore laid down by this court. 70 Ark. 500; 92 630. 2. The court had no jurisdiction to render the decree. When the action was instituted, no legal notice of the pendency of the action w......
-
Knauff v. National Cooperage & Woodenware Co.
...the taxes are to be paid, it is nevertheless equivalent to an actual payment." Hickman et al. v. Kempner, 35 Ark. 505; Gunn v. Thompson, 70 Ark. 500, 69 S. W. 261; Scroggin v. Ridling, 92 Ark. 630, 121 S. W. 1053. In Scroggin v. Ridling, supra, we held that: "Where the owner of land in good......