Little Red River Levee District No. 2 v. State

• Decision Date: 04 July 1932
• Docket Number: 4-2691
• Citation: 52 S.W.2d 46,185 Ark. 1170
• Parties: LITTLE RED RIVER LEVEE DISTRICT NO. 2 v. STATE
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

52 S.W.2d 46

185 Ark. 1170

LITTLE RED RIVER LEVEE DISTRICT NO. 2 v. STATE

4-2691

Supreme Court of Arkansas

July 4, 1932

Appeal from White Chancery Court; Frank H. Dodge, Chancellor affirmed.

Decree affirmed.

Culbert L. Pearce, for appellant.

Brundidge & Neelly, and Hal L. Norwood, Attorney General for appellee.

OPINION

HUMPHREYS, J.

This is a suit by the State of Arkansas to quiet or validate its tax titles to certain lands in White County by curing the informalities and irregularities contained in the forfeiture proceedings by which it acquired its tax titles thereto. The authority for the suit is found in act No. 296 of the Acts of 1929, which was construed by this court in the case of State v. Delinquent Lands, 182 Ark. 648, 32 S.W.2d 1061, to mean that the State, upon notice by publication, might confirm its tax titles in courts of equity against informalities or irregularities connected with the forfeiture and sale thereof to the State.

Appellant in response to the notice by publication, intervened in the action alleging that it acquired title to certain of the lands (describing them) embraced in the suit under proceedings to enforce its lien for improvement taxes.

The intervention contains three paragraphs.

Paragraph one alleged that the sales of said lands to the State for State, county, and school taxes were totally void on account of irregularities in levying the taxes and sales of the lands for nonpayment of same for the following reasons:

"(1) The proceedings of the levying courts in levying the taxes and in making appropriations thereof were irregular, null and void. (2) The assessors did not properly prepare, certify and file the lists of assessable lands with the county clerks, at the time and in the manner prescribed by law. (3) The collectors did not post notices in the respective townships, showing the days and places taxes would be collected. (4) The clerks did not comply with the requirements of the statutes in furnishing the collectors a complete list of delinquent lands in the county, giving the names of the owners, etc. (5) The tax collectors did not prepare, certify and file in the county clerk's offices a list of delinquent lands, within the time prescribed by law. (6) Notices of sale were not published for the time and in the manner prescribed by law. (7) The county clerks did not record the lists of delinquent lands at the times and in the manner prescribed by law."

Paragraph two alleged that the proceedings by which appellant acquired its tax titles to said lands for the nonpayment of improvement taxes were regular.

Paragraph three is as follows:

"The assessed values placed on said lands for State, county and school purposes were made at a time when lands were much more valuable than at this time. Said assessed values averaged more than $ 6 per acre while the actual market value of said land at the time did not exceed $ 4 per acre. Under the laws and rules adopted by the State Tax Commission, said assessments should have been fixed at no more than one-half of the fair market value of said lands at the time of assessment. This would have reduced the assessed value from more than $ 6 per acre down to $ 2 per acre. All subsequent assessments were made, extended and carried forward in the same manner as the assessment upon which said void tax sales were made, and each and all of said assessments are therefore null and void for the same reasons."

The prayer of the intervention is that on account of the void assessments and void sales of the lands for State, county, and school purposes, appellee be denied the right to quiet its title thereto; but, if allowed to do so, the sales be canceled and assessments reduced to fair and equitable amounts, and that appellant then be allowed to pay same, including subsequent taxes based upon the re-valuation.

Appellee demurred to paragraphs one and three of appellant's intervention for the following reasons:

"Because said paragraphs do not state facts sufficient to constitute an answer to the complaint of plaintiff, neither do they set up facts sufficient to entitle it to the relief prayed for in said intervention.

"Because, if said lands were erroneously assessed, the intervener had a plain, adequate remedy at law, of which the intervener failed to avail itself, and cannot now take advantage of it in this proceeding.

The demurrer was sustained to paragraphs one and three of the intervention and appellant declined to plead further, whereupon the court dismissed the intervention and rendered a decree in accordance with the prayer of appellee's complaint, from which is this appeal.

Appellant contends that the trial court should have overruled appellee's demurrer to the first paragraph of the intervention because the State cannot confirm, under act 296 of the Acts of 1929, the title to tax lands acquired by it on void levies and void sales. The answer to this contention or argument is that the...