Robertson v. McClintock
| Decision Date | 18 May 1908 |
| Citation | 110 S.W. 1052,86 Ark. 255 |
| Parties | ROBERTSON v. MCCLINTOCK |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Lee Chancery Court; Jesse C. Hart, Chancellor, on exchange of circuits; reversed.
Cause reversed.
S. H Mann, for appellant.
1. Under the provisions of Acts 1901, p. 153, owners of land have one year from the date of the sale only, and not from the confirmation of such sale. 74 Ark. 302; 65 Id 521-2; 24 Cyc. 36; 67 Ark. 566; 66 Id. 490; 55 Id. 37.
P. D McCulloch and N.W. Norton, for appellees.
The word "sale" is a technical word, and means a completed sale, i. e., the date of the confirmation. 73 Ark 344; 84 S.W. 703; 77 Ark. 242; 91 S.W. 303; 61 Ark. 80; 69 Id. 539.
The lands in suit were condemned by a decree of the Lee Chancery Court to be sold for levee taxes. The sale took place on June 17, 1905. It was at public auction, for cash, as required by the statute. Appellant bought and paid the purchase price. The sale was reported at the December term, 1905, but nothing was done until February 1, 1907, when appellees filed a petition, claiming to be the owners, and alleging that in October, 1906, they had made to the purchaser the necessary tender and had offered to redeem; and they asked that the right of redemption be accorded them. Their prayer was granted on May 27, 1907, and the purchaser has appealed. The sale was never confirmed.
The only question presented is whether the year allowed for redeeming runs from the date of the sale by the commissioner or from the date of confirmation.
The act under which the right of redemption is claimed is as follows:
Sec. 3 repeals all acts in conflict with this act. Act of April 6, 1901, Acts 1901, p. 153.
Our only purpose should be to inquire what the Legislature meant by the language employed. The sale referred to in the second section is the same sale that is described in the first. It is spoken of as "such sale." The second section may therefore supply a key to the first.
It is plainly the purpose of the second section carefully to guard the rights of the purchaser, who has come forward and paid his money to discharge the burdens due the public. Its language is emphatic throughout. He who seeks to redeem must pay "the full amount of money for which said land was sold and all accrued taxes thereon with ten per cent. interest on the whole amount from the day of such sale," etc.
The Legislature knew that the terms of the chancery courts throughout the St. Francis Levee District are held only once every six months, and that if interest should be paid the purchaser on redemption only from the time of confirmation, he must lose interest on his money for several months. When it was so careful to see that he was protected, it is clear that it did not intend that he should suffer this loss. It gave him the highest rate of interest allowed in private contracts, with the evident purpose that if he did not get the land he should receive as much for his money as he could possibly get by lending it out; but, if interest would run merely from the date of confirmation, he could not receive more than six per cent., and if the land was redeemed immediately after the confirmation, he would receive no interest at all.
In this case the sale lay unconfirmed from the 17th of June, 1905, to May 27, 1907, so that if interest runs only from the date of confirmation the only reward of the purchaser for discharging the debt which the property owed the public would be the loss of two years' interest on his money. Appellees themselves recognize the injustice of this, alleging in their petition that they had tendered interest, which must have been from the date of the sale by the commissioner, since there had been no confirmation.
It is plain that in the second section of the act by "day of such sale" the Legislature intended the day when the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Miller v. Henry
... ... to its confirmation. In this respect the sale may be said to ... be incomplete until confirmation." ... In ... Robertson v. McClintock, 86 Ark. 255, 110 ... S.W. 1052, we had under consideration the statute which ... authorized redemption within one year from the date ... ...
-
Smith v. Spillman
...Dig. § 760; 101 Ark. 390; 105 Id. 5; 49 Id. 397; 200 S.W. 1008. 5. As to the necessity of confirmation of sale, see 99 Ark. 327. See also 86 Ark. 255; 33 Pa.St. 94. Gault's appeal long since been discredited. See also 23 Ark. 39. Appellees had lost their right to redeem. The right is purely......
-
Brasch v. Mumey
...but refers to the sale made by the commissioner, and fixes the time of such sale on the day of sale made by him. In the case of Robertson v. McClintock, supra, certain lands were sold under a decree of the chancery foreclosing the lien given by the act of the Legislature for the collection ......
-
Tallman v. Heuck
...of confirmation. 3 Jones on Mortgages, § 1653; 4 Heisk. 80; 7 Heisk. 131; 11 Lea 267; 9 Heisk. 681; 1 Swan 484; 99 Ark. 328; 123 Ark. 20; 86 Ark. 255. Even tresspasser obtains title to crops raised by him on lands of another after severance and removal. 140 Ark. 281. OPINION HART, J., (afte......