Osburn v. Hide

Decision Date19 January 1891
Citation8 So. 514,68 Miss. 45
CourtMississippi Supreme Court
PartiesCHARLES H. OSBURN v. E. D. HIDE

October 1890

FROM the circuit court of Tallahatchie county, HON. GEORGE WINSTON, Judge.

The plaintiff in ejectment relied upon a tax-title derived from the state. He introduced the list of lands sold to the state in March, 1883, for the taxes of 1884, which embraced the land in controversy, and then introduced the auditor's deed to himself, dated March 15, 1886.

The defendant offered in evidence the land assessment roll of 1883, to show that it had not been filed with the clerk of the board of supervisors on the day required by law. The plaintiff objected on the ground that the assessment roll of 1883 had been legalized by the act of March 12, 1884 (Laws 1884, p. 14). Thereupon the defendant offered the minutes of the board of supervisors, to show that the said assessment roll had not been received and approved by the board at its August meeting in 1884, which defendant contended was necessary under that act to the legalization of the roll.

Section 3 of said statute is as follows:--

"Sec 3. Be it further enacted, that all assessment rolls of lands for the year 1883, which were not returned at the proper time, or which may in other respects be irregular or illegal be and they are hereby legalized; and any party who may desire to object to such assessments may be heard at the August terms, 1884, of the boards of supervisors; and said boards may then and there receive said assessment rolls, and approve the same; and such receipt and approval, at the August terms, 1884, shall cure all existing defects in said assessment rolls."

The court sustained plaintiff's objection and declined to allow defendant to introduce evidence as to the non-approval of the assessment roll.

Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.

Judgment reversed and remanded.

W. B. Marshall, for appellant.

The act of 1884 required the receipt and approval of the assessment roll by the board of supervisors at its August term that year, before it could be legalized.

W. S. Eskridge, for the appellee.

By the 2d section of the act of 1884 it was left discretionary with the board of supervisors whether it would equalize the assessments. Its failure to do so violated no duty and cannot prejudice the title of plaintiff. That act was merely amendatory of the code, § 503, and the right of the defendant was still left to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Russell Inv. Corporation v. Russell
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • June 20, 1938
    ... ... Swaysie, 56 Miss. 704; Fannie v. Funches, 60 ... Miss. 541; Nevin v. Bailey, 62 Miss. 433; Bowman ... v. Row, 62 Miss. 513; Osborne v. Hide, 68 Miss. 45, 8 ... All ... defects, irregularities and illegalities, if any, in the ... assessment, levy or sale of the land was cured ... ...
  • Morris v. Myer
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • March 12, 1906
    ...(s. c., 21 So. 521); Pearce v. Perkins, 70 Miss. 276 (s.c., 12 So. 205); Carlisle v. Chesterman, 69 Miss. 392 (s.c., 12 So. 257); Osborn v. Hide, 68 Miss. 45 (s.c., 8 So. The tax deed discloses that separate and distinct parts, or parcels, of land, in different sections, not in one solid bo......
  • McGuire v. Union Investment Co.
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • April 3, 1899
    ... ... Chrestman, 69 Miss. 392; Carlisle v ... Goode, 71 Miss. 455; Pearce v. Perkins, 70 ... Miss. 276; State v. Adler, 68 Miss. 487; Osburn ... v. Hide, 68 Miss. 45; Brothers v. Beck, 75 Miss. 482 ... Argued ... orally by Fontaine Jones, for appellants, and by Fred Clark, ... ...
  • Brothers v. Beck
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • January 17, 1898
    ... ... that the assessment roll was legalized by the act of 1884 ... This court has construed that act in the case of Osburn ... v. Hyde, 68 Miss. 45, in which the court say, "The ... true interpretation of that act is that its curative effect ... was made to depend on ... of a failure of the board to act as directed by the terms of ... the act itself. See Osburn v. Hide ... , 68 Miss. 43, 8 So. 514, which is precisely in point ... It is ... earnestly contended by the learned counsel for appellant, ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT