Moody v. Hoskins

• Decision Date: 07 March 1887
• Citation: 64 Miss. 468,1 So. 622
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: L. B. MOODY v. J. M. HOSKINS

1 So. 622

64 Miss. 468

L. B. MOODY v. J. M. HOSKINS

Supreme Court of Mississippi

March 7, 1887

APPEAL from the Chancery Court of Lincoln County, HON. LAUCH MCLAURIN, Chancellor.

The bill in this case was exhibited by L. B. Moody against J. M Hoskins, praying that complainant be allowed to redeem certain lands held by the defendant by virtue of a tax-title. The defendant demurred, and the Chancellor sustained the demurrer and dismissed the bill. The complainant appealed. The facts presenting the point in controversy are sufficiently stated in the opinion.

Decree reversed and cause remanded.

A. C McNair, for the appellant.

A vested right to redeem was by the words of § 1701 of Code of 1871 lodged in appellant. The language used is "the right to redeem the same," etc., and not the privilege. An entire estate did not pass by the tax-sale--out of the estate passed was by law carved, or rather reserved to the owner, a right to redeem--and this right or estate was a condition attaching to the State's title, which the legislature could not divest. It has been held that the legislature cannot extend the time for redemption, and this on the ground that the purchase at a tax-sale is a contract. If the purchase is a contract, is not the sale a contract?

The State in this case got no title until the period for redemption had expired as to appellant, and if counsel's position is right the effect was or might have been to deprive appellant of the right to use the property, to receive the rents and profits from the time of the sale until one year after he reached the age of twenty-one years. Was not this a most material right of property which the legislature could not divest? and are not his rights to be judged and determined by the law in force at the time of sale to the State?

There is a dearth of authorities on this interesting subject accessible to me, but without having had an opportunity to examine them I refer to the following, which seemingly bear on the question: Cargill v. Power, 1 Mich. 369; State v. Commissioners of School and University Lands, 4 Wis. 414; Judge Cooley in his work on Taxation 370, seems to be in doubt.

H Cassedy, for the appellee.

The legislature has a perfect right to repeal any statute extending the right of redemption to infants until they become of age and one year thereafter.

The right to redeem in any case is a mere act of grace to the delinquent taxpayer, which the legislature may withdraw at any time before the delinquent has availed himself of the privilege. 13 Wis. 341; 12 Wis. 371; 1 Hill 324. No element of a contract enters into the act of indulgence, and the legislature in the repeal of such a law impairs no obligation that is within the constitutional prohibition.

The decree of the Chancellor in sustaining the demurrer and dismissing the bill was therefore correct, and it should be affirmed.

OPINION

CAMPBELL, J....