Osceola Land Co. v. Henderson

• Decision Date: 21 January 1907
• Citation: 100 S.W. 896
• Parties: OSCEOLA LAND CO. v. HENDERSON et al.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

100 S.W. 896

OSCEOLA LAND CO. v. HENDERSON et al.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

January 21, 1907.

Appeal from Mississippi Chancery Court; Edward D. Robertson, Chancellor.

Action by the Osceola Land Company against Ida Henderson and others. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Chas. T. Coleman and J. T. Coston, for appellant. G. W. Thomason, J. D. Block, and W. J. Driver, for appellees.

RIDDICK, J.

This action was brought against the defendants by the Osceola Land Company to quiet its title to 1,280 acres of wild and unimproved land in Mississippi county in this state.

In this complaint plaintiff alleges that in February, 1879, the state of Arkansas by its patent conveyed the land in controversy to W. A. Jones. The chain of title under which plaintiff claims the land commences with this conveyance from the state to Jones in 1879. This patent from the state to Jones is not set out in the record, but there is an agreement of counsel in the following words: "That the abstract of title to the lands in controversy be and the same is hereby agreed to be used in evidence as the evidence of the title under which the lands are claimed in lieu of copies of such records as may pertain to same and which may be mentioned in said abstract of title."

Counsel for defendant by this agreement seems to have admitted that the state by its patent conveyed this land to W. A. Jones in 1879, yet if we concede that plaintiff holds by mesne conveyances from W. A. Jones, there is still no allegation and nothing to show the nature of this patent from the state or the recitals therein, nor is there any allegation or evidence to show that the state was the owner of the land at the time it was conveyed to Jones. Defendants in their answer allege that these lands were entered by W. A. Jones about 1858, and that he received a certificate of purchase therefor from the state that afterwards, for a valuable consideration, he transferred the certificate of purchase to W. C. Davie; that Davie conveyed the land to Rice Stewart, who paid taxes on the land continuously from 1858 down to the year 1892, when Stewart died. In 1893 the land was sold for the nonpayment of the taxes for the year 1892, and purchased by C. E. McAuley, under whom defendants hold. Taking these two opposing chains of title set up by plaintiffs and defendant in connection with the agreement of counsel above referred to, we may assume that the state did own this land, and that W. A. Jones, under whom plaintiffs claim, purchased it from the state some time about 1858, and that afterwards, in 1879, a patent was issued by the state to Jones conveying him the title. But the lands became subject to taxation so soon as they were purchased. The evidence shows that they were on the taxbooks in 1872, and that one Rice Stewart claimed these lands and paid taxes on them from that date down to 1892, when, as before stated, the lands were forfeited for taxes and purchased by C. E. McAuley. McAuley and those holding under him paid the taxes from the time of his purchase down to 1901. The facts in reference to the discharge of the taxes of 1901 are as follows: The father of the defendants died some months after the taxes for that year became due, and on account of his sickness or for some other reason the taxes were not paid before the day of the sale of land for nonpayment of taxes. But Hale and Crenshaw, who, as shown hereafter, claimed under McAuley, held a vendor's lien on the land for half the purchase price which the ancestor of defendant agreed to pay them, and, in order to protect their interests, Mr. Hale, of that firm, requested Driver and Thomason, from whom they had purchased the land, and who held a vendor's lien on it for unpaid purchase money, to attend the sale, and, if the taxes were not paid, to pay them. There is record evidence tending to show that the lands were offered for sale and were struck off to Driver and Thomason for the amount of the taxes, penalty, and costs. The money to make this purchase was furnished by Hale and Crenshaw, Driver and Thomason only acting as their agents in the purchase. The testimony of both Driver and Hale shows that the intention was simply to pay the taxes to protect their interests and that of the defendants. Without deciding that this purchase of the land at tax sale was, under the circumstances, a payment of taxes within the meaning of the act of 1899, which declares that those who pay taxes on wild and unimproved land under color of title shall be deemed to be in possession of same, it was, as between the defendants and their vendors who made the purchase, nothing more than a payment of taxes. The defendants and those under whom they claim also paid the taxes for 1902. In July, 1903, the plaintiffs made application to redeem these lands...