Livingston v. Hudson

• Citation: 85 Ga. 835,12 S.E. 17
• Parties: Livingston. v. Hudson.
• Decision Date: 03 October 1890
• Court: Supreme Court of Georgia

85 Ga. 835

12 S.E. 17

Livingston.

v.Hudson.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Oct. 3, 1890.

Tax-Titles—Documentary Evidence.

1. It is no objection to the admissibility in evidence of a sheriff's tax-deed, regular on its face, that it is not shown that the comptroller general had properly advertised the land before issuing the fi. fa. for taxes, and that the deed does not show that the land was properly advertised, as it will be presumed that the recitals of the deed as to the conduct of the sheriff are correct, and that the comptroller general did his duty.

2. A deed purporting to have been executed in another state before a justice of the peace, and not duly probated in the county where the land is situated, is not admissible in evidence, though improperly recorded in that county.

3. Parol evidence that defendant had returned certain land to the tax receiver, and paid the taxes thereon for certain years, is not admissible where it is not shown that the tax-digests are lost, or not obtainable, as they are the best evidence.

4. Where a tax fi. fa. is in evidence, and has no executed transfer upon it, evidence that it was delivered to a certain person by one L., together with other fi. fas., transferred to L. by the comptroller general, and that L. directed the proceedings under it, does not show that such fi. fa. was transferred to L. by the comptroller general.

5. In an action for land claimed by plaintiff under a tax-deed, the law presumes that the comptroller general did bis duty in advertising the laud for sale for taxes, and it is incumbent on defendant to show that he did not so advertise.

6. Where it does not appear that defendant was present at a tax-sale, or that he knew the land was to be sold, or that he failed to disclose that the land was not wild, a charge that if he was present, and failed to make such disclosure, he would be estopped is reversible error.

Error from superior court, Laurens county; Roberts, Judge.

T. L. Griner and It. A. Stanley, for plain tiff in error.

J. M. Stubbs and Mercer Haynes, for defendant in error.

Blandford, J. The plaintiff in error moved the court for a new trial upon the several grounds which are embraced in the motion, which motion was refused, and thereupon the plaintiff in error says the court committed error.

1. The first special assignment of error is that the court admitted in evidence, over the objection of defendant's counsel, a certain wild-land deed made by the sheriff of Laurens county to James T.Hudson, plaintiff, to the lot of land in dispute, the same being a sheriff's deed. The ground of this objection is that the plaintiff did not first show that the comptroller general of the state of Georgia had advertised the land conveyed in said deed for 30 days before issuing said fi. fa. for taxes, and because the recital in said deed did not show it was ever advertised in any particular newspaper published at the capital of the state of Georgia, as required bylaw. We think that this ground is not well taken. The deed being regular upon its face, the recitals therein in respect to the conduct of the sheriff are pre-sumed to be correct. The law further presumes that every officer does his duty; and it will be presumed that the comptroller general did his duty before issuing the execution by making the proper advertisement.

2. The next ground of error complains that the plaintiff did not first show that the comptroller general had furnished to the clerk of the superior court a list of the lot of land in dispute. What has been said in reference to the first ground in the motion applies equally to this. The law will presume in favor of the comptroller general that he did perform his duty by giving to the clerk of the superior court a list of all the...