Gwynn v. Richardson

• Decision Date: 13 February 1888
• Citation: 65 Miss. 222,3 So. 579
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: NICHOLAS GRAYSON v. M. E. RICHARDSON, ET AL

3 So. 579

65 Miss. 222

NICHOLAS GRAYSON v. M. E. RICHARDSON, ET AL

Supreme Court of Mississippi

February 13, 1888

APPEAL from the Chancery Court of Coahoma County, HON. W. R. TRIGG Chancellor.

Nicholas Grayson exhibited this bill against Mrs. M. E. Richardson and others, asking that his tax title to a certain tract of land be confirmed.

On the trial the complainant introduced in evidence a list of the lands sold to the State in 1882, for the unpaid taxes of 1881, embracing the land in controversy, and a conveyance of the same from the State to himself.

The defendants presented certain evidence in relation to the assessment roll of 1879, under which the land was sold for taxes, the import and effect of which are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the Court. Defendants also showed that the land in controversy was sold to the Liquidating Levee Board in 1868, for levee taxes, and in September, 1881, was sold by the Levee Board to one Ford, who sold the same to one E Richardson, whose heirs are defendants herein. There was other evidence concerning the sale by the Levee Board to Ford, which will be found stated in the opinion of the Court.

The Chancellor dismissed the bill, and the complainant appealed.

Decree reversed and entered.

Cutrer & Cutrer, for the appellant.

The list of lands and certificates, and the deeds from the auditor to appellant are prima facie evidence that everything essential to the tax collector's power to sell had been done and existed at the time of such sale. The burden of proof was upon appellees to show the invalidity of the sale if such invalidity existed.

Code 1880, Sec. 526.

The first objection urged below to the title sought to be confirmed is that the land assessment roll of 1879 was never approved by the Board of Supervisors of Coahoma County, the word "received" being used instead of the word "approved," in the order of approval; and then it was said, even if the word "received" should be held sufficient, an approval at the September meeting, 1879 was ineffectual, because not at the meeting prescribed by the Revenue law of 1878. The Court has frequently decided both questions under the same act adversely to appellees. Vide Wolfe v. Murphy, 60 Miss. 1; Corburn v. Crittenden, 62 Miss. 125; Mills v. Scott, 62 Miss. 525.

It is immaterial that counsel agree that the roll was received and approved at a special meeting of the Board, "said meeting not having been called for that purpose."

That meeting was called according to, and authorized by, law; Code 1880, Sec. 2135; Laws of 1878, page 39, Sec. 29. So far as the order of approval is concerned "it is wholly immaterial to the tax payer whether it is made at one term or another." The roll is validated if the order is entered at any time before the levy of the tax for which the land is sold. Vide Wolfe v. Murphy, Supra, 60 M., 16.

As to when the assessor filed the roll, no endorsement of the fact of filing, of the date thereof, nor of any thing else is required to be made on the roll; and in the absence of any affirmative showing by proof aliunde, it must be presumed that the roll was filed at the time, and dealt with in the manner required by law. 62 Miss. 525, Supra.

Aside from this, the language of the Board at its regular August meeting, 1879, shows the roll had been returned prior to that time, and the legal presumption of the filing of the roll as required by law is entirely sustained and confirmed thereby.

J. W. Cutrer, of counsel for the appellant, argued the case orally.

D. A. Scott, for the appellees.

Complainant has no valid claim or legal or equitable title to the land in controversy. (1st) because the land assessment roll of Coahoma County for the year 1879 was not received or approved by the Board of Supervisors of said county at the time or in the manner prescribed by law; it will be observed that the proof develops the following state of facts: that said assessment roll was not completed at the regular August (1879) meeting of said Board of Supervisors, at which meeting said roll should properly have been approved, and hence was not delivered to the clerk of said Board on or before the first Monday in July, 1879, nor did said Board at that or any other time appoint any one to complete said assessment roll, but without authority of law granted to the derelict assessor further time (to wit, until the first Monday in September,) within which to complete and return the same; this action upon the part of the Board of Supervisors was beyond their power and void; said roll was not received or approved at the time designated by said Board, although a meeting was held on that day, but was received on September 16th, 1879, at a special meeting of that body called for an entirely different purpose; we therefore maintain that said roll was void and all proceedings or sales thereunder, were and are illegal. 58 Miss. 138; 60 Miss. 541; 60 Miss. 963; 60 Miss. 1; Rev. Act 1878, Sections 26 to 29.

(2d.) At the time said tract of land was sold it was assessed upon said land roll, and appeared thereon as the property of the Liquidating Levee Board, and could not therefore have been legally sold for taxes. 58 Miss. 628; 60 Miss. 293.

OPINION

COOPER, C. J.

The list of lands sold for taxes was prima facie evidence that...