Jones v. Merrill

• Decision Date: 25 April 1892
• Citation: 69 Miss. 747,11 So. 23
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: G. MILTON JONES ET AL. v. J. G. MERRILL ET AL

11 So. 23

69 Miss. 747

G. MILTON JONES ET AL. v. J. G. MERRILL ET AL

Supreme Court of Mississippi

April 25, 1892

FROM the chancery court of the first district of Hinds county HON. H. C. CONN, Chancellor.

The case is stated in the opinion.

Decree reversed and cause remanded.

Frank Johnston, for appellants.

The former decree, canceling the tax-title of 1868, is conclusive against appellee, who holds through one of the defendants in that suit.

If we assume that the taxes were not paid for 1874, and the sale to the state, in 1875, was valid, the auditor's deed to Mrs Merrill, in 1888, was invalid, because she was not within the contemplation of the act of 1888, not being a purchaser under the decree in Green v. Gibbs. The tax-title of 1868, under which she claimed, had been declared void, and vacated. It was as if it had never been.

Mrs Merrill, being the owner of the life-estate, could not purchase the tax-title, and defeat the remainder-men. There is no distinction in this respect between the life-tenant and his grantee. The purchase will be deemed a redemption, since it is the duty of the life-tenant to pay the taxes. See 22 Me. 331; 34 Ill. 175; 40 Ib., 261; 4 Blatch. (C. C.), 112 The case of Stewart v. Matheny, 66 Miss. 21, is directly in point.

Calhoon & Green, for appellees.

Merrill was not disqualified to buy, and set up the tax-title of 1875. Stewart v. Matheny was a case where a tenant for life went into possession under the common title. But here Merrill had been in possession, claiming adversely, more than three years before he bought the life-estate. His adverse possession continued all the time, and he had the right to buy up an outstanding title. Complainants cannot complain. The state was the true owner, and conveyed its title to Merrill. This defeated the title of the life-tenant and the remainder-men.

Defendant was a purchaser under the act of 1888, and had been in possession more than one year. This made the title unassailable. Laws 1888, p. 40.

Besides, defendant had been in possession more than three years, from 1880, under the tax-title derived under the decree in Green v. Gibbs, and more than ten years before decree in this case.

The statute did not stop running by the cancellation of the levee tax-title. Bell v. Coates, 56 Miss. 776. Nor did the acquisition of the estate of the life-tenant stop the running of he statute. Jonas v. Flanniken, ante, p. 577.

Argued orally by Frank Johnston, for appellants, and M. Green, for appellees.

OPINION

COOPER, J.

Assuming all controverted facts to be in favor of the appellees, the history of the title of the lands in controversy chronologically stated, is this:

In May, 1868, the lands, then being owned by George E. Williams, were sold for the non-payment of levee taxes, and at said sale were bought by the liquidating levee board. In September, 1868, Williams conveyed the lands to Mrs. M. A. V. Crawford and others, reserving to himself an estate for his own life therein. The title thus conveyed, it is agreed, afterwards passed to the complainants, but the date does not appear. In 1870 the lands were again sold for levee taxes, and conveyed to the levee board, but were redeemed by Williams before the period for redemption had expired. In 1875 the lands were sold for the non-payment of the state and county taxes of the year 1874, and at such sale were struck off to the state. On July 30, 1880, Gwin and Hemingway, liquidating levee commissioners, acting under the decree in Green v. Gibbs, conveyed to J. M. Matthews such title as was vested in them by virtue of the tax-sale of May, 1868, and Matthews thereupon entered upon said lands, claiming under said deed, and remained in possession more than three years after the adoption of the code of 1880, and died, leaving surviving him his widow, M. J. Matthews, and several children. On August 30, 1886, George E. Williams conveyed his life-estate in the lands to Mrs. M. J. Matthews, the widow of J. M. Matthews. In 1887 the appellants, claiming as remainder-men after the life-estate should terminate, exhibited a bill in the chancery court of Bolivar county against the widow and children of J. M. Matthews, praying cancellation of the tax-deed of May, 1868, and the conveyance by Gwin and Hemingway to J. M. Matthews. Upon final hearing, relief was granted as prayed, and said conveyances were canceled.

Mrs. Matthews, the widow of J. M. Matthews, married J. G. Merrill, and died childless, whereby her husband inherited her estate; and after her death, and on June 20, 1888, J. G. Merrill, claiming to be a purchaser of the lands under the decree in Green v. Gibbs, procured from the auditor a conveyance of the state's title derived under the tax-sale of 1875, under the provisions of the act of March 2, 1888, entitled "An act to quiet and settle the title to certain lands in the Yazoo Delta, which were sold by the commissioners of the chancery court for the first district of Hinds county, in the case of Joshua Green and others v. Hemingway & Gibbs, treasurer and auditor and ex officio levee commissioners." Laws, p. 40.

The appellants, after this, applied to the auditor to purchase the title of the state, contending that, the deed from Gwin and Hemingway to Matthews having been canceled by the decree of the chancery court of Bolivar county, Mr. Merrill could no longer be considered as claiming thereunder, and was therefore not within the terms of the act of March 2, 1888, and that the deed from the auditor to him was a nullity by reason of want of authority in the auditor to make the conveyance to him.

The auditor claimed that, having made the conveyance to Mr Merrill, the state no longer had any title to convey to complainants, and refused to execute a deed as requested. Other facts appear in the record, but they are unimportant for the decision of the cause. On the above facts, the appellants seek, by their...