Mixon v. Bell
| Decision Date | 29 April 1935 |
| Docket Number | 4-3839 |
| Citation | 82 S.W.2d 33,190 Ark. 903 |
| Parties | MIXON v. BELL |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Phillips Circuit Court; W. D. Davenport, Judge affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
John C Sheffield, for appellant.
W. G Dinning, for appellee.
This suit in ejectment was brought on September 23, 1933, in the circuit court of Phillips County by appellant against appellee to recover possession of a tract of land occupied by appellee as his homestead for many years, described as follows: "The northwest quarter (NW 1/4) of the northwest quarter (NW 1/4) of section eight (8), township three (3) south, range three (3) east, Phillips County, Arkansas," alleging that she was the owner thereof under and by virtue of a tax deed from the State of Arkansas dated March 21, 1933. It was alleged in the complaint that the land was forfeited to the State for the nonpayment of the taxes of 1923, and that the title was confirmed in the State in accordance with the requirements of act 296 of the Acts of the General Assembly of 1929.
An answer was filed by appellee interposing the defenses: first, that the tax forfeiture of said lands for the taxes of the year 1923 was void for failure of the clerk to extend any taxes against said lands for the year 1923, and that the clerk was without authority to sell same to the State; and second, that appellee attempted to pay taxes in good faith, but that the collector refused to permit him to do so, because the books showed that it was assessed in the name of E. M. Pipkin.
The cause was submitted to the court, sitting as a jury by agreement, upon the pleadings, the State Commissioner's deed to appellant, the decree of the chancery court confirming the title to said land in the State of Arkansas and a stipulation as to the facts in the case, resulting in a dismissal of appellant's complaint, from which is this appeal. The stipulation, in substance, is as follows: that appellee would, if present, testify that he tendered to the collector of Phillips County, Arkansas, within the time prescribed by law for the payment of taxes assessed against the lands in question for the year 1923, an amount sufficient to pay the taxes assessed against said lands, but that the collector refused to accept payment for the reason that the lands stood assessed in the name of E. M. Pipkin as owner; that the appellee had been in actual, open, and continuous possession of the lands in question for twenty-five years previous to the time of the bringing of the lawsuit, and during all that time occupied same as his own; that the record of the real estate tax books for the year 1923, now in the possession of the clerk of Phillips County, Arkansas, wherein the taxes for the year 1923 were extended against the lands situated in said district, reflects the following as to the particular land in question: Name of Owner, E. M. Pipkin. Value fixed by County Court , Value equalized by the Tax Commission , School District , Rate of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Berry v. Davidson
... ... the numerous well considered authorities cited. 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 ... ...
-
Lambert v. Reeves
...Stringer v. Conway County Bridge District, 188 Ark. 481, 65 S.W.2d 1071; Kirk v. Ellis, 192 Ark. 587, 93 S.W.2d 139, and Mixon v. Bell, 190 Ark. 903, 82 S.W.2d 33. This point is ruled adversely to appellant's in Mixon v. Bell, supra. In that case, as in this, the tax records of Phillips cou......
-
Berry v. Davidson, 4-5668.
...matters is well fortified by the numerous well considered authorities cited. Indeed, we find no fault with the case of Mixon v. Bell, 190 Ark. 903, 82 S.W.2d 33. The same has been modified in the later case of Lambert v. Reeves, 194 Ark. 1109, 110 S.W.2d 503, 112 S.W.2d 33. These cases rela......
-
Lambert v. Reeves, 4-4819.
...Stringer v. Conway County Bridge District, 188 Ark. 481, 65 S.W.2d 1071; Kirk v. Ellis, 192 Ark. 587, 93 S.W.2d 139, and Mixon v. Bell, 190 Ark. 903, 82 S.W.2d 33, 34. This point is ruled adversely to appellant's contention in Mixon v. Bell, supra. In that case, as in this, the tax records ......