Lambert v. Reeves
| Decision Date | 29 November 1937 |
| Docket Number | 4-4819 |
| Parties | LAMBERT v. REEVES |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Phillips Chancery Court; A. L. Hutchins, Chancellor affirmed.
Decree affirmed.
Bevens & Mundt, for appellant.
C. L Polk, Jr., for appellee.
J. G Burke, Jno. I. Moore, Jr., and G. D. Walker, amici curiae.
Appellees brought this action against appellant to cancel a tax deed from the state to appellant, dated June 8, 1936, and to quiet title in them to west half of section 16, township 5 south, range 1 east and south half of northeast quarter section 31, township 4 south, range 2 east, Phillips county, which land was alleged to be their property, and was wild, unimproved and not held adversely by appellant. It was further alleged that there was an attempt to forfeit and sell said lands to the state for the nonpayment of taxes due for the year 1926, and that said forfeiture and sale were and are void for various reasons hereinafter mentioned. Appellant answered denying the various grounds of invalidity set out in the complaint, and, for affirmative defense, pleaded confirmation of the sale to the state, under the provisions of act 296 of 1929, on May 28, 1931, and also pleaded the curative provisions of act 142 of 1935.
The case was tried on stipulation of facts, in substance as follows: 1. That appellees were the owners in fee of said lands at the time of the alleged forfeiture and sale for the taxes of 1926, that the lands were wild and unimproved and that no taxes thereon were paid for 1926; 2, that said lands were assessed in 1925 for the taxes of 1926 by assessing all of section 16, 640 acres at a valuation of $ 6,400, and the land in section 31, 80 acres at a valuation of $ 640; 3, that the county clerk delivered the tax books to the collector on January 6, 1927, without extending the taxes on the books in dollars and cents, and in the following form:
Name of Owner
Date
Parts of
Section
Township
Range
AREA
Paid
Section
Acres
Reeves, W. D. Est
All
16
5S
1E
640
(above listed on Page 47)
Reeves Timber Co.
31
4S
2E
80
(above listed on Page 176)
Name of Owner
AREA
Valuation
School Dist.
Rate, Dist.
100ths
School Tax
Reeves, W. D. Est.
6400
31
12
(above listed on Page 47)
Reeves Timber Co.
Road Dist.
Tax
Tax
Reeves, W. D. Est.
448.00
336.00
(above listed on Page 47)
Reeves Timber Co.
3.20
63.00
(above listed on Page 176)
Also that the warrant for the collection of taxes as required by law was attached to the last of three books, which was entitled "Real Estate Tax Book, city of Helena," which was not the book in which rural property was described; 4, that the collector failed to file with the clerk as is required by law, a delinquent list showing the amount of taxes delinquent on each description reported delinquent * * *; 9, that the lands involved were certified to the state; 10, that the state secured a decree of confirmation to its title under said act 296 of 1929, on May 28, 1931; and 11, on June 8, 1936, sold same to appellant.
Based on this stipulation the court entered a decree canceling appellant's deed from the state and quieting title in appellees, on the finding "that by reason of the failure of the clerk of Phillips county to extend the taxes against said lands as is provided by law, that the sale of said lands for taxes for the year 1926 to the State Land Commissioner of the state of Arkansas was void for want of power and authority, and that the defendant's deed from the state of Arkansas to said lands is a cloud on plaintiffs' title, and that plaintiffs' title to said land is superior and paramount to any right, claim or interest of the defendant."
For a reversal of the judgment, appellant contends, first, that there was no failure in Phillips county to extend the taxes on the tax records against these lands; and second, that if there were a failure to extend the taxes, such failure should be designated as a mere informality or irregularity, which is cured by the confirmation decree under act 296 of 1929, or by the later curative act, No. 142 of 1935. We cannot agree with appellant on either contention. As shown above, the lands involved were properly described and properly assessed, but there was a total failure on the part of the county clerk to extend in dollars and cents in the columns in the tax-books provided for that purpose, the amount of state tax due on said property, the amount of county tax, the amount of school district tax and the total of all taxes. The only tax extended against said lands was the amount due the Laconia Levee District and the Helena-Ferguson Road District. In this respect, the clerk failed to perform a duty required of him by law. Section 13758 of Pope's Digest provides: "The clerk of the county court shall, after receiving statements of the rates and sums of money to be levied for the current year from the Auditor of State, and from such other officers and authorities as shall be legally empowered to determine the rates or amount of taxes to be levied for the various purposes authorized by law, forthwith determine the sums to be levied upon each tract or lot of real property in his county adding the taxes of any previous year or years that may have been omitted, and upon the amount of personal property, moneys and credits listed in his county in the name of each person, company or corporation, which shall be assessed equally on all real and personal property subject to such taxes." This section makes it imperative upon the clerk to "determine the sums to be levied upon each tract or lot of real property in his county adding the taxes of any previous year or years that may have been omitted." This would seem to be an unnecessary requirement if it did not mean that he was required to put the sum so found to be due on the tax books for the information of the collector, so that the collector, when any person calls to pay his taxes, may determine the sums due and payable from the books, without having to make the calculations himself. Here, the clerk made no calculations. He failed to determine the sums due upon this property or, if he did, he failed to put said sums upon the tax books. No taxpayer could look at the books himself and determine the amount of taxes that had been assessed against his land, without making the calculations himself, and it is extremely doubtful whether one taxpayer in ten could make the calculations. In Sawyer v. Wilson, 81 Ark. 319, 99 S.W. 389, Judge BATTLE, speaking for the court, holding the delinquent list sufficient against attack, said: To support this statement, the case of Scott v. Watkins, 22 Ark. 556, is cited. In that case, it was said: These cases have reference to the delinquent list and the advertisement of delinquent lands for sale, and not to the extension of the taxes on the tax books by the clerk. Appellees could not have readily ascertained by reference to the tax books what the taxes against their lands were, either for state, county, school district or for the total amount of all taxes thereon. In this respect, the case at bar differs from Evans v. F. L. Dumas Store, Inc., 192 Ark. 571, 93 S.W.2d 307, and Alphin v. Banks, 193 Ark. 563, 102 S.W.2d 558. In the former case, all of the several amounts of taxes were actually extended against the land including state, county, school district and total, and the same thing is true in the latter case. In that case, the court said: It will be seen that in both cases, the taxes were extended as required by law. In both cases, the rate of state tax was 8.7 mills and the rate of county tax was 8 mills, just as in the case at bar. In the Alphin case, it was contended that each separate millage tax for state purposes that went to make up the total of 8.7 mills and each millage county tax that went to make up the total of 8 mills should have been separately shown on the tax books and not grouped under one head, and it was in answer to this contention that the court correctly used this language: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wood v. Lovett
...9 Id., §§ 8610, 8620. 10 Carle v. Gehl, 193 Ark. 1061, 104 S.W.2d 445; Deaner v. Gwaltney, 194 Ark. 332, 108 S.W.2d 600; Lambert v. Reeves, 194 Ark. 1109, 110 S.W.2d 503, 112 S.W.2d 33; Gilley v. Southern Corporation, 194 Ark. 1134, 110 S.W.2d 509; Foster v. Reynolds, 195 Ark. 5, 110 S.W.2d......
-
Burbridge v. Bradley Lumber Co.
...discrepancies between advertised total and total collected,—these are pointed to, with reliance upon such cases as Lambert v. Reeves, 194 Ark. 1109, 110 S.W.2d 503 and 112 S.W.2d 33; Lumsden v. Erstine, 205 Ark. 1004, 172 S.W.2d 409, 147 A.L.R. 1132; Carle v. Gehl, 193 Ark. 1061, 104 S.W.2d......
-
Burbridge v. Bradley Lumber Co., of Arkansas
... ... collected, -- these are pointed to, with reliance upon such ... cases as Lambert v. Reaves, [214 Ark. 140] ... 194 Ark. 1109, 110 S.W.2d 503 and 112 S.W.2d 33; ... Lumsden v. Erstine, 205 Ark. 1004, 172 ... S.W.2d 409, ... ...
-
Berry v. Davidson
... ... Indeed, we ... find no fault with the case of Mixon v ... Bell, 190 Ark. 903, 82 S.W.2d 33, as modified in the ... later case of Lambert v. Reeves, 194 Ark ... 1109, 110 S.W.2d 503, 112 S.W.2d 33. These cases related to ... the proper extension of the taxes upon the tax book. We are ... ...