Jefferson Land Company v. Grace

• Decision Date: 11 March 1893
• Citation: 21 S.W. 877,57 Ark. 423
• Parties: JEFFERSON LAND COMPANY v. GRACE
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

21 S.W. 877

57 Ark. 423

JEFFERSON LAND COMPANY v. GRACE

Supreme Court of Arkansas

March 11, 1893

Appeal from Jefferson Circuit Court in Chancery, JOHN M. ELLIOTT Judge.

W. P Grace and two others brought suit in equity against the Jefferson Land Company, to cancel a decree and sale of land in an overdue tax proceeding.

The complaint alleged that on August 22, 1881, the county court of Jefferson county ordered suit to be brought against the forfeited lands of the county, under the overdue tax act, and appointed Jones & Prigmore attorneys to bring such suit. That a complaint was filed alleging that the land in controversy in this suit was forfeited to the State for taxes of 1870 that the taxes were due and unpaid for that year, but that the forfeiture was void; and prayed that the forfeiture be set aside and the tax declared a lien, and the land sold for its payment. That on December 23, 1882, a decree was duly rendered in said overdue tax suit setting aside the forfeiture, declaring the said tax a lien, and condemning the land to be sold to satisfy the lien. That on February 20 1883, the land was sold by virtue of a decree to Met L. Jones, of the firm of Jones & Prigmore above mentioned, and the sale duly approved by the court; and said Jones, for a valuable consideration assigned the certificate of purchase to John B. Jones. That, the land not being redeemed, the commissioner appointed in said decree executed to John B. Jones a deed of conveyance on such assigned certificate of purchase, conveying the land to him, which deed was approved by the court and recorded. That John B. Jones sold and conveyed the same to the defendant, the Jefferson Land Company. That Grace owned the land, and paid the taxes of 1870 in due time; and that the collector, in addition to giving his receipt therefor at the time aforesaid, marked said taxes "paid" upon the tax books of the county, then in his custody for the collection of taxes. That Grace was in possession of the land during the pendency of the overdue tax suit, and knew nothing of that suit until shortly before the filing of this bill. That plaintiffs are and have been for years in actual possession of the land.

The complaint alleged that the deed to defendant is a cloud on title of plaintiff. That the decree in the overdue tax suit and sale were fraudulent for the following reasons:

1. Because it was not true that the taxes were due on the land as alleged in the complaint in the overdue tax suit, but the taxes had been paid.

2. The overdue tax act had been repealed before sale took place, and the court had no jurisdiction to confirm the sale.

The complaint therefore prayed that the decree and deeds be set aside.

Defendant demurred to the bill, which demurrer was overruled. Thereupon he answered, admitting that a decree had been legally rendered in said overdue tax case against said land, ordering it sold; that it was legally sold to M. L. Jones, and the sale approved by the court; that the land was not redeemed, and that M. L. Jones, for a valuable consideration, assigned the certificate of purchase to John B. Jones; that the commissioner appointed by the decree conveyed said land to John B. Jones, and that said conveyance was duly approved by the court; that John B. Jones, prior to the purchase of said certificate of purchase, carefully examined the records of said overdue tax proceeding, and could find no claim of said Grace or any other person to said land, nor any evidence that the taxes had been paid; that he conveyed the same to the defendant, representing that he had so examined the records of said county, and that the proceeding was regular; that defendant paid for the land without any knowledge of the claim that the taxes had been paid, and was an innocent purchaser.

The printed abstracts state that the sale to Met L. Jones under the overdue tax decree occurred the 20th of February, 1883; that he transferred his certificate of purchase to John B. Jones on the 25th day of March, 1885; and that the sale was not confirmed until the 21st day of May, 1885.

The cause was tried upon an agreement that all the allegations of fact, made in the complaint and answer, shall be taken as true for the purpose of the trial. There was no other evidence introduced.

The court found that the taxes due on the land for the year 1870 were paid by plaintiff, Grace, and held the overdue tax decree and sale thereunder void. Defendant has appealed.

Decree reversed.

John B. Jones and Auten & Moss for appellant.

No new fact is alleged which might not have been made a defense to the overdue tax suit. Having had due notice to appear and defend in that suit, the decision therein is conclusive. 49 Ark. 345; 55 Ark. 37. The Jefferson Land Company is a stranger to the overdue tax suit, and, as to it, this is a collateral attack upon a domestic judgment. 49 Ark. 412; 39 Ill. 256; 43 Cal. 644. That the taxes have been paid is no defense. 49 Ark. 346; 50 id. 188. Appellant is an innocent purchaser at a judicial sale duly confirmed, and is protected by the decree. 18 Ark. 172; 17 id. 146; 23 id. 69; 41 id. 316. When a court has once obtained jurisdiction, then it matters not what errors may intervene, the title of the purchaser under the decree is protected. 131 Ill. 168; 20 Ark. 583; 39 Ill. 256; 43 Cal. 643; 28 Ill. 108; 41 La. 553; 90 Mo. 676; 30 F. 332.

A. B. Grace for appellee.

1. Appellant not an innocent purchaser. Possession is notice to the world. 16 Ark. 375; 47 id. 549; 33 id. 465.

2. The answer does not deny that J. B. Jones or the appellant had notice of appellant's equities. This is fatal. 30 Ark. 267; 21 id. 22.

3. Met Jones was the attorney of the plaintiff, and is charged with notice of the fraud. 21 Ark. 35; 33 id. 575; Jones Mortg. secs. 584, 646; 27 Iowa 239; 47 Ark. 227; 53 id. 137.

4. The facts show the decree was obtained by fraud. 22 Ark. 121; 7 id. 167; 50 id. 224; 40 id. 403; 33 id. 575.

OPINION

MANSFIELD, J.

The object of this suit, as stated in the brief of counsel for the appellees, was to avoid the tax decree under which the lands were sold, on the ground that it was obtained by fraud. But we need not consider whether the admitted facts sustain the charge of fraud, unless they also entitle the appellees to relief against the defendant land company; and it is well settled that the latter is...