Porter v. Tallman

• Decision Date: 12 May 1900
• Citation: 56 S.W. 1071
• Parties: PORTER v. TALLMAN.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Page 1071

56 S.W. 1071

PORTER v. TALLMAN.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

May 12, 1900.

Appeal from Arkansas chancery court; James F. Robinson, chancellor.

Bill by Elliott Tallman against J. I. Porter to set aside a decree confirming a tax title. From a decree in favor of the plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed.

Elliott Tallman brought this action in equity to review and set aside a decree confirming a tax title for error apparent upon the record. He alleged that he was the owner of the land embraced in the tax deed, that the sale upon which the deed was based was irregular, and the deed void, and that the decree of confirmation was erroneous, for the following reasons apparent upon the record: (1) Because there was no sufficient affidavit of the publication of the notice of proceedings to confirm. (2) Because Porter had not, at the time of confirmation, paid taxes for two full years after the expiration of redemption, and did not exhibit to the court tax receipts showing three consecutive payments of taxes on the land after the period of redemption had passed. The defendant, Porter, appeared, and filed his answer. Upon the hearing the court found in favor of plaintiff, and set aside the decree of confirmation, and declared void the tax title claimed by Porter, and he appealed.

Gibson & Park and Rose, Hemingway & Rose, for appellant. Geo. C. Lewis, for appellee.

RIDDICK, J. (after stating the facts).

There are only two questions presented by this appeal. The first relates to the sufficiency of the affidavit showing the publication of the notice of the proceedings to confirm the tax title of Porter. It is said that this affidavit purports to have been made by the publisher of the paper, instead of by the editor or proprietor, as required by the statute. But the publication may have been proved in some other way than by the affidavit mentioned. The decree of confirmation recites a finding by the court that the petitioner had given due and legal notice of such proceeding, and, in the absence of any showing to the contrary in the record, we must presume that this finding is correct. Porter v. Dooley, 66 Ark. 1, 49 S. W. 1083; Sand. & H. Dig. § 4685.

The other question is whether one seeking to confirm a tax title must show that he has made three regular payments of taxes after the period of redemption has expired. Porter purchased the land in controversy at a sale of land for delinquent taxes on the 9th day of June, 1890. The time for redemption expired on the 9th of June, 1892. At the hearing of his petition for confirmation he exhibited tax receipts showing that he had paid taxes on the land for 1891, 1892, and 1893. These payments were...