Pinkert v. Baird
| Decision Date | 20 June 1955 |
| Docket Number | No. 5-713,5-713 |
| Citation | 225 Ark. 235,281 S.W.2d 929 |
| Parties | Ed PINKERT, Appellant, v. John P. BAIRD, Appellee. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
U. A. Gentry, Little Rock, for appellant.
O. W. Garvin, Linwood L. Brickhouse, Little Rock, for appellee.
Appellant Pinkert instituted this action in chancery court to quiet his title to certain vacant lots and to remove as a cloud on his title an adverse claim asserted by appellee Baird. Appellee answered setting forth his claim of title to the same property and in the alternative asked that the court require appellant to reimburse him for all improvement and general taxes he had paid on said lots since 1939. To the latter plea appellant interposed the three year statute of limitation. The trial court found that appellant had good title to the lots and confirmed his title to the same, and from this portion of the decree appellee has not appealed. The trial court further held that appellee was entitled to judgment against appellant for the amount of all taxes paid by him, and for a lien on the lots to secure payment of same. From this portion of the decree appellant prosecutes this appeal.
Since no question is presented here as to the title to the property, the facts relative thereto may be briefly stated. On December 15, 1938, appellee received from the City of Little Rock a deed to lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 19, Capitol Hill Extension to the City of Little Rock and since that date, up to and including the year 1953, appellee has paid improvement and general taxes on said lots in the amount of $2,636.78. On May 26, 1944, appellant received a deed to the same lots from W. I. Stout, trustee, who in turn had received a deed through Sewer Improvement District 94.
Appellant concedes that appellee is entitled to be reimbursed for all taxes paid on said lots for three years prior to the institution of this suit, but strongly insists that appellee is barred by the three year statute of limitation from recovering for taxes paid previously thereto. In support of this contention appellant relies on Brookfield v. Rock Island Improvement Company, 205 Ark. 573, 169 S.W.2d 662, 663, 147 A.L.R. 451, stating that it settles the question here presented. We are unable to agree with appellant in this contention.
Briefly stated the facts and the holding in the Brookfield case, supra, are as follows: Rock Island sued Brookfield Brookfield pled the three year statute of limitation. The trial court gave judgment in favor of appellee for taxes paid over a period of 18 years, with interest and declared a lien on the land. On appeal we held that, notwithstanding there was sufficient evidence to show that Rock Island had paid the taxes in good faith, claiming to be the owner of the land, the three year statute of limitation barred a recovery for all amounts paid more than three years before the suit was instituted.
The Brookfield case, supra, was cited and followed in Lincoln National Life Insurance Company v. Huff, 210 Ark. 833, 197 S.W.2d 927, wherein the facts were essentially the same as in the Brookfield case.
After a careful review of other decisions of this court, we have, with some hesitancy, concluded that the facts in the above cited cases are distinguishable from the facts in this case, and that they are therefore not controlling here.
It will be noted that in the Brookfield case, supra, and the Huff case, supra, the party seeking to recover for taxes paid on land in good faith under color of title was the same party who instituted the action. In such cases the holding seems to be that the three year statute of limitation will apply in favor of the adverse party. These holdings are apparently based on the theory that the plaintiff's cause of action [for the recovery of taxes] accrued when the taxes were paid and that his right of action to recover the same must be brought within three years after payment. We have held however that...
To continue reading
Request your trial