Hunt v. Gardner
| Decision Date | 25 March 1905 |
| Citation | 86 S.W. 426,74 Ark. 583 |
| Parties | HUNT v. GARDNER |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Woodruff Chancery Court, EDWARD D. ROBERTSON Chancellor.
Affirmed.
Decree affirmed.
Myers & Bratton, for appellant.
The tax sale was regular in all things and valid. 55 Ark. 218; 68 Ark. 248.
Roleson & Woods, for appellee.
The certificate was not placed on the record before the day of sale, and the sale is therefore void. Black. Tax. T. § 214. Jurisdictional facts must affirmatively appear of record. 55 Ark. 30, 218; 51 Ark. 34.
Appellee sues to cancel, as a cloud upon his title to certain lands, a deed executed to appellant by the county clerk pursuant to a sale by the collector for taxes.
The validity of the tax sale is challenged upon the ground that the clerk failed to record and certify before the day of sale the published list of lands to be sold, as required by law. The statute in question is as follows: "The clerk of the county court shall record said list and notice in a book to be by him kept for the purpose, and shall certify at the foot of said record stating in what newspaper said list was published, and the date of publication, and for what length of time the same was published before the second Monday in June then next ensuing, and such record, so certified, shall be evidence of the facts in said list and certificate contained." Kirby's Dig. § 7086. The clerk recorded the list, and made the required certificate on the day of sale.
The decree below cancelled the tax deed in accordance with the prayer of the complaint, and the defendant appealed.
This court has held that a failure by the clerk to record the list and certify the publication until after the day of sale rendered the sale void. Logan v. Eastern Ark. Land Co., 68 Ark. 248, 57 S.W. 798. In that case, the certificate having been made after the day of sale, it was unnecessary to decide whether or not the making of the certificate on the day of sale would be a compliance with the statute; but in the opinion a strong intimation is given that it would not be, and that the certificate must be made before the day of sale. The reasoning of the court leads to that conclusion.
There was no proof here to show whether the certificate was made before or after the hour of sale, and we need not indulge in presumption to determine at what hour it was made, as the law in such instance will take no heed of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cecil v. Tisher
...prior to the day of sale, otherwise the sale is invalid. Logan v. Eastern Arkansas Land Co., 68 Ark. 248, 57 S.W. 798; Hunt v. Gardner, 74 Ark. 583, 86 S.W. 426. We have also held that the clerk's certificate recorded is the sole evidence of the publication of the list. Hunt v. Gardner, sup......
-
Cecil v. Tisher
...prior to the day of sale, otherwise the sale [is] invalid. Logan v. Eastern Arkansas Land Co., 68 Ark. 248, 57 S.W. 798; Hunt v. Gardner, 74 Ark. 583, 86 S.W. 426. We have also held that the clerk's certificate thus recorded is the sole evidence of the publication of the list. Hunt v. Gardn......
-
Board of Directors of St. Francis Levee District v. Fleming
...because (a) it does not affirmatively appear on the record that the clerk's certificate of publication was made before the day of sale. 74 Ark. 583; 55 Ark. 218; 51 Ark. 34; 68 Ark. 248. (b) delinquent lists for taxes for those years were not returned by the collector and filed with the cle......
-
Bingham v. Powell
...before the day of sale, and it is not sufficient if the record be made on the day of sale, as the law takes no heed of parts of days. 74 Ark. 583. Other bearing on the subject and sustaining this contention are 141 Ark. 632; 68 Ark. 248; 55 Ark. 218; 80 Ark. 583; 84 Ark. 316; 87 Ark. 360; 7......