Reeves v. Conger

• Decision Date: 13 May 1912
• Citation: Reeves v. Conger, 147 S.W. 438, 103 Ark. 446 (Ark. 1912)
• Parties: REEVES v. CONGER et al.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Page 438

147 S.W. 438

REEVES v.CONGER et al.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

May 13, 1912.

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

Action by W. D. Reeves against D. J. Conger and another. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded, with directions.

This is a suit by the appellant against the appellees to recover section 16, in township 6 S., range 2 E., in Phillips county, Ark.The suit was begun in the circuit court.The appellant alleged title to the land through a sale by the collector under the provisions of chapter 142, §§ 7700 to 7707, inclusive, of Kirby's Digest.He alleged that the lands were sold under these provisions to John I. Moore, who obtained a deed from the state land commissioner to the same; and that he purchased same from Moore.The answer denied the plaintiff's title and right of possession, and, as a cross-bill, alleged that the deed of the state land commissioner to Moore, under whom plaintiff claimed title, was void for various reasons, which are specifically set forth, and among which are the following: "That the petition presented to the collector requiring him to sell the land, was not signed by a single resident of the congressional township;" and "that the report of the collector to the county court does not show that notice was posted upon the land as required by the statute."There was a prayer for a transfer to equity; and that the deed of the land commissioner be set aside as fraudulent.The cause was transferred to equity.

The deeds on which appellant relies were adduced in evidence, and also the following order of the county court of Phillips county, entered on July 6, 1903, to wit: "In the matter of section 16, township 6 south, range 2 east.Now on this day comes Frank Kitchens, collector of Phillips county, Arkansas, and presents for approval his report of the sale of section 16, township 6 south, range 2 east, 469.26 acres, in Phillips county, Arkansas, to John I. Moore, on July 6, 1903, and the same having been examined by the court and found correct, and in due conformity with the law governing the sale of sixteenth sections, the same was in all things approved and confirmed, ordered entered upon the records of this court."

Proof was adduced by the appellees, for the purpose of establishing the allegations upon which they relied to have the deed canceled.The court entered a decree dismissing the complaint for want of equity, and setting aside the judgment of the county court confirming the sale, and canceling the deed of the state land commissioner to John I. Moore and the latter's deed to appellant.

Jacob Fink, of Helena, and Rose, Hemingway, Cantrell & Loughborough, of Little Rock, for appellant.Greenfield Quarles, of Helena, for appellees.

WOOD, J.(after stating the facts as above).

1.Section 7707 of Kirby's Digest, in regard to the sale of sixteenth sections, provides that "the collector shall, without delay, report all sales to the county court, which may reject or confirm the same.* * * If the sale be confirmed by the county court the collector shall execute and deliver to the purchaser a certificate * * *" and, "upon the presentation of this certificate to the commissioner of state lands," the purchaser "shall be entitled to a deed from said commissioner of state lands for the tract of land" sold.

The report of the sale by the collector, under the above section, gave to the county court jurisdiction to inquire into the regularity of the proceedings by which the sale was made.Upon this report of the collector, it was the duty of the county court, before confirming the sale, to ascertain whether or not all the statutory requirements had been complied with by the collector in making the sale.Since the county court confirmed the sale, the presumption is that it found that the requirements of the statute had been observed.Its judgment confirming the sale is conclusive of its regularity; and this judgment is not open to collateral attack.

A proceeding for the sale of sixteenth section lands under the statute is one in rem; and, after the collector has reported such sale to the county court, that court having thus acquired jurisdiction to confirm or reject the sale, its judgment confirming the same is the judgment of a court of superior jurisdiction acting strictly according to the requirements of the statute conferring the jurisdiction.All who may claim an interest in the land are parties to the proceedings, and are concluded by the judgment of confirmation, unless they have assailed it in a direct proceeding.

While the sale is not a judicial sale, the same not having been ordered by the court, yet, after a sale made by the collector under the statute has been approved and confirmed by the court, the same principles apply as in judicial sales concerning the curing of defects and irregularities in the sale.Before the confirmation of the sale of a sixteenth section, any p...