McLain v. Meletio
| Decision Date | 08 May 1933 |
| Docket Number | 30603 |
| Citation | 147 So. 878,166 Miss. 1 |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
| Parties | MCLAIN v. MELETIO et al |
1 TAXATION.
Statutes allowing redemption of land from tax sales must be liberally construed in favor of person seeking to redeem.
2 TAXATION.
Where chancery clerk informed taxpayer there were no outstanding tax sales, taxpayer was not required to tender sum necessary to redeem, since law does not require useless thing.
3 TENDER.
Formal tender is unnecessary, where it appears money, if tendered, would not be received.
4. DRAINAGE.
Taxpayer's offer to redeem from any and all tax sales for drainage assessment taxes as well as ad valorem taxes; word "taxes" in its broad sense including special or local assessments on specific property benefited by local improvement as well as ad valorem taxes.
5. DRAINS. Taxation.
Taxpayer's offer to redeem within two-year period took away from both state and drainage district commissioners, purchasing at tax sales, power to convey title to any one else.
HON. T. P. GUYTON, Chancellor.
APPEAL from chancery court of Winston county HON. T. P. GUYTON, Chancellor.
Suit by W. B. McLain against W. A. Meletio and others. From the decree, complainant appeals. Reversed and remanded.
Reversed and remanded.
Nate Williamson, of Meridian, for appellant.
Where one tenders the full amount of taxes on his land to the tax collector, who not only tells him that the taxes are already paid but hands him a written list of lands, showing that the taxes have been paid by another party, the sale for such taxes is void.
Brannon v. Lyon, 38 So. 609; Borroughs v. Vance, 23 So. 548.
It is error not to allow tender by an infant of the amount due a purchaser at a tax sale pending an action of ejectment against him by such purchaser.
If there is a doubt as to the rights of the owner relative to the redemption of his lands from the tax sale the doubt should be resolved in favor of the right of the owner and the authorities are practically unanimous in holding that statutes allowing redemption from tax sale should be liberally and benignly construed in favor of the right to redeem.
Darrington v. Rose, 90 So. 632.
E. M. Livingston, of Louisville, for appellees.
The effort or pretended effort made by appellant to redeem his lands was insufficient to comply with the law, and the socalled effort to redeem does not strengthen the position of appellant in this case. His ignorance of the law and the requirement to be met to constitute a valid redemption does not excuse him. He had full knowledge that the taxes had not been paid and there was a duty resting on him to know whether his lands had been sold for taxes.
Simply to go to the chancery clerk and say to him, "I want to pay my taxes if there is any due" is not sufficient.
Appellant made no legal tender to the chancery clerk, and there is nothing in the record to show that he was prepared to pay the taxes, other than his testimony, and that cannot be persuasive because he did not even know how much was due, if anything.
If McLain had made a perfectly legal tender I do not see how it could be binding on the appellees. They had no notice of any such tender, nor did they have any notice of any kind of effort being made to redeem the lands from tax sales, and proceeded in perfectly good faith with the best of motives, to purchase the land from the state for a perfectly legitimate purpose, and any effort made by appellant to redeem the lands would not be binding on the appellees who are innocent purchasers from the state.
Argued orally by Nate Williamson, for appellant.
Appellant filed his bill in the chancery court of Winston county against appellees to cancel certain conveyances under which appellees claimed title to lands described in the bill, to which lands appellant also asserted title. The prayer of the bill was that appellees' alleged title to the lands be canceled and appellant's be confirmed.
There is no real conflict in the evidence as to the material facts in the case. Appellant purchased the lands involved in October, 1925, from T. G. Ulhorn and J. L. Dunlap. The conveyance to him warranted title except as to the taxes of 1924 and 1925. The lands were delinquent for their 1924 ad valorem taxes. On the 6th day of April, 1925 they were sold for such taxes and purchased by the state. Part of the lands were in a drainage district; they were...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Waits v. Black Bayou Drainage Dist
... ... 396; ... Seward v. City of Jackson, 165 Miss. 478; Howie ... v. Panola-Quitman Dr. Dist., 168 Miss. 387; ... Covington v. Meletio, 168 Miss. 497; Turley v ... St. Francis County, 287 S.W. 196; Wyatt v ... Beard, 15 S.W.2d 990; Hopper v. Chandler, 36 ... S.W.2d 398; ... benefit assessments ... The ... word "taxes" in its broad sense includes drainage ... benefit assessments ... McLain ... v. Meletio, 166 Miss. 1 ... Therefore, ... the right to enforce payment of drainage benefit assessments ... is governed by the same ... ...
-
De Mello v. Fong
...courts are devoid of any power in that respect. North Pacific Grain Growers v United States, 90 Ct. Cls. 189, 202; Love v Lincoln County, 166 Miss. 1, 147 So. 877, 878. Upon application of these principles it follows that since the legislature has exclusive control over the allowance of gov......
-
Moore v. Rotenberry
... ... to redeem.s ... Darrington ... v. Rose, 90 So. 632, 128 Miss. 16; Bousquet v ... Brown, 119 So. 166, 152 Miss. 171; McLain v. Meletio, ... 147 So. 878, 166 Miss. 1 ... Courts ... of equity will not only protect the rights of minors but ... jealously guard ... ...
- De Mello v. Fong