Joyner v. Harrison

Decision Date04 June 1892
Citation19 S.W. 920,56 Ark. 276
PartiesJOYNER v. HARRISON
CourtArkansas Supreme Court

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

APPEAL from Little River Circuit Court in chancery, Rufus D. HEARN Judge.

Joyner brought suit against Harrison to quiet title to land situated in Little River county, claiming title under a tax deed executed on Nov. 24, 1879, reciting that the land was sold for the taxes of the years 1872-6, inclusive. Defendant filed an answer and cross complaint in which he relied upon a deed to him from the state land commissioner, dated Aug. 10, 1881 based upon forfeitures for non-payment of taxes for the years 1867, 1870, 1871, 1873-5. He alleged that plaintiff's deed was a cloud upon his title and prayed that it be removed. The cause was submitted upon the pleadings and the deposition of the clerk of Sevier county, who testified that he had carefully examined the assessment rolls on file in his office and found no assessment of the land in question for the year 1867; the tract did not appear on the duplicate tax books on file in his office for that year. The court decreed that plaintiff's tax-deed was a cloud upon defendant's title and removed the same. Plaintiff has appealed.

By the act of March 5, 1867, the county of Little River was created from territory previously belonging to the counties of Sevier and Hempstead. The land in question was detached from Sevier county. Section II of the act provides "that the taxes assessed for the year 1867, upon the property and inhabitants of the county of Little River, shall inure to the benefit of, and belong to, said county of Little River; and, to that end, it shall be the duty of the clerk of the county court of the county of Sevier, whenever the assessment list of the taxable inhabitants and property, of said county, shall be returned by the assessor of said county, to make out and furnish to the said sheriff of the county of Little River, a complete and accurate list of all taxable inhabitants and property on said assessment list, which fall within the limits of said county of Little River, as stricken off from the county of Sevier; which said list shall be certified as correct, under the seal of his office; and it shall be the duty of said sheriff, immediately after such list comes to his hands, to file the same in the office of the clerk of the county court of said county of Little River; and he shall immediately give notice, as now required by law, that he has filed said assessment, and that all persons aggrieved thereby can attend at the next term of the county court, in said county, and have the same adjusted."

Affirmed.

L. A. Byrne for appellant.

1. There was no legal assessment upon which to base a forfeiture for the taxes of 1867. 18 How. 137; 34 F. 701. The assessor of Sevier county was the only officer authorized to make the assessment of the land in controversy for the year 1867. The testimony of the clerk shows that there was no assessment of the land for that year, and that no taxes were extended on the tax books against said land for that year. A tax deed void in part is void in toto. Black, Tax Titles, sec. 97; 32 Ark. 131.

2. The State is estopped, and her vendee acquires no better right than she had. Herm. on Est. vol. 2, pp. 812, 813, 1264-5; 34 F. 701.

...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • Kelley v. Laconia Levee District
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • February 11, 1905
    ...111; 31 Ark. 175; 11 Ark. 519; 49 Ark. 397; 52 Ark. 341; 81 S.W. 111; 22 Ark. 531; 58 Ark. 84; 101 F. 91. The taxes assessed were illegal. 56 Ark. 276; 66 Ark. 542; Ark. 93; 61 Ark. 414; 63 Ark. 475; 61 Ark. 36; 68 Ark. 248. The overdue tax decrees were void. 66 Ark. 52; 55 Ark. 218; 65 Ark......
  • Hodges v. Harkleroad
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • February 25, 1905
    ...are conclusive of the legality of the sales. Gantt's Div. §§ 3891, 3914, 5221; Sand. & H. Dig. §§ 6623, 724, 4565, 4582; 49 Ark. 266; 56 Ark. 276; 15 Ark. 331; 43 Ark. Appellant's defense of limitations was good. 53 Ark. 419; 59 Ark. 460; 60 Ark. 499; 66 Ark. 144; 71 Ark. 117. The suit shou......
  • Kelley Trust Company v. Lundell Land & Lumber Company
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • May 28, 1923
  • Fiddyment v. Bateman
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • December 19, 1910
    ... ... thereby. Section 4419, Kirby's Digest; Chism v ... Price, 54 Ark. 264, 15 S.W. 1031; Joyner v ... Harrison, 56 Ark. 276; Muskegon Lumber Co ... v. Brown, 66 Ark. 539, 51 S.W. 1056; ... Carraway v. Moore, 75 Ark. 146, 86 S.W ... 993; ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT