Sprott v. Sprott

Decision Date18 July 1918
Docket Number10039.
Citation96 S.E. 617,110 S.C. 438,114 S.C. 62
PartiesSPROTT ET AL. v. SPROTT ET AL.
CourtSouth Carolina Supreme Court

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Clarendon County; J. W. De Vore, Judge.

Suit by Sarah F. Sprott and others against Thomas Z. Sprott and others. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiffs appeal. New trial granted.

The following is a copy of the statutes referred to in the opinion:

Act Dec. 24, 1887 (19 St. at Large, p. 862):

An act in relation to forfeited lands, delinquent lands and collection of taxes.

Section 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the state of South Carolina, now met and sitting in General Assembly, and by the authority of the same, that hereafter, immediately upon the expiration of the time allowed by law for the payment of taxes in any year, the county treasurer of each county shall and is hereby authorized and directed to, issue in the name of the state a warrant or execution in duplicate against each defaulting taxpayer in his county, signed by him in his official capacity, directed to the sheriff of his county or his lawful deputy, requiring and commanding him to levy the same by distress and sale of so much of the defaulting taxpayer's estate, real or personal, or both, as may be sufficient to satisfy the taxes, state, school, county and special, of such defaulters, specifying therein the aggregate amount of all his taxes, as well as the amount of each fund which warrant or execution shall run substantially in these words (filling the blanks to suit each case), viz.: ______ treasurer for the county of ______, to the sheriff of ______ county, or to his lawful deputy: Whereas, ______ has been duly assessed the sum of ______ dollars for defraying the charges of the state, school, county and special, for the fiscal year beginning November 1, 18--, as follows, to wit For the state, $______; for public schools, $______; for county $______; for special, $______, which ______ has neglected to pay: These are, therefore, in the name of the state, strictly to charge and command you to levy by distress and sale of the personal property, and if sufficient personal property cannot be found, then by distress and sale of the land of the said ______, the sum of ______ dollars, together with ______ dollars, the charges hereof; and for so doing this shall be your sufficient warrant.

Given under my hand and seal this ______ day of ______, A. D. 18--.

________ [L. S.],

Treasurer of ______ County.

And the sheriff to whom such warrant shall be directed shall take from such defaulter the following fees in the execution of his office, viz.: For serving each warrant, $1.50, besides mileage; for advertising sale $1; for making sale and executing deed and of conveyance, $3; and for all sums levied as aforesaid, five per cent.; and the county treasurers respectively for every such warrant he shall issue shall have from such defaulter $1.

Sec. 2. That under and by virtue of said warrant or execution the sheriff shall seize and take exclusive possession of so much of the defaulting taxpayer's estate, real or personal, or both, as may be necessary to raise a sum of money named therein and said charges thereon, and, after due advertisement, sell the same before the courthouse door of the county on a regular sales day and within the usual hours for public sales, for cash, make titles therefor to the purchaser complying with terms of sale, and annex to said title the duplicate warrant with indorsement thereon of his action thereunder, put the purchaser in possession of the property sold and conveyed, and after deducting from the proceeds of sale the amount of taxes and charges to pay over the excess, if any there be, to the defaulting taxpayer, and the taxes so collected to the county treasurer. And in case there be no bid equal in amount to the taxes named in said warrant or execution, the county auditor shall buy the land for the sinking fund commission as the actual purchaser thereof for the amount of said taxes and penalties, costs and charges; and the sheriff shall thereupon execute titles to said sinking fund commission as to any other purchaser, and in the manner above provided, and shall put them or their authorized agent in possession of the premises. The land so sold and purchased and delivered to said commission shall be treated by them as assets of the state in their charge, and be sold at such times and in such manner as by them shall be deemed most advantageous to the state. In all cases of sale the sheriff's deed of conveyance, whether executed to a private person, a corporation or the sinking fund commission, shall be held and taken as prima facie evidence of a good title in the holder, and that all proceedings have been regular, and all requirements of the law have been duly and fully complied with. No action for the recovery of said land sold by the sheriff under the provisions of this act, or for the recovery of the possession thereof, shall be maintained unless brought within two years from the date of said sale.

Sec. 3. That in case the defaulting taxpayer, after levy of distress as aforesaid, shall allege that the taxes have been paid or are unjustly assessed against him, he can and may have said sale suspended, provided before said sale he pays to the sheriff the amount of taxes and costs named in the warrant, accompanied with his affidavit that said taxes have been paid, or are unjustly assessed against him, and within twenty days thereafter take such steps as are provided by law for corrections of unjust assessment, or to prove payment, and prosecutes the same to a successful result within a reasonable time. And in case the defaulting taxpayer, after the levy of the distress as aforesaid, makes no payment and affidavit as herein provided, he shall be deemed in law to have waived all exception to the omissions, errors and irregularities (if any there be) in the assessment of said tax and in all preliminaries to said sale as prescribed by law, and to have admitted that each and all preliminary steps to said assessment and sale, and said assessment and sale are in accordance with requirement of law.

Sec. 4. That the county auditors of the several counties be, and are hereby, authorized and directed to restore the tax duplicate of their counties respectively, in the name of the former owner, or his heirs or assigns, each and every parcel of land in their several counties now listed on the forfeited land record, and said to be in charge of the sinking fund commission, and enter against the same the taxes, state, school, county and special, of its said owner for the fiscal year beginning 1 November, 1887.

Sec. 5. That the state of South Carolina hereby renounces all title by forfeiture for nonpayment of taxes to each and every of said parcel of land and will treat them hereafter as the lands of the former owner, his heirs or assigns; but this renunciation of title is upon the reservation and condition that the state may hereafter collect by suit at law, or other legal method, from said lands a sum equal to the aggregate amount of all annual assessments for taxes with the penalties that might and would have been assessed and charged against the said lands in case the same had never been declared delinquent and forfeited; and the retention of the possession and use of said lands for ninety days after the approval of this act by said former owner, his heirs or assigns, shall be deemed sufficient evidence of his or their acquiescence in and acceptance of the reservations and conditions of said renunciation of title.

Sec. 6. That the sinking fund commission be, and is...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Baker
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • October 28, 1927
    ... ... by A. G. Kollock in 1901." ...          "Color ... of title" is anything which shows the extent of the ... occupant's claim. Sprott v. Sprott, 110 S.C ... 438, 96 S.E. 617 ...          Section ... 321, vol. 1, Code 1922, providing for occupation under a ... written ... ...
  • Graniteville Co. v. Williams
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • August 5, 1946
    ... ... Turpin v. Brannon, 3 McCord 261. It 'is anything which ... shows the extent of occupant's claim.' Sprott et ... al. v. Sprott et al., 114 S.C. 62, 96 S.E. 617. 'The ... object of color of title is not to pass title. In that case ... it would be title, ... ...
  • Hopkins v. Oakland Club
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • April 11, 1922
    ... ... 132] more than merely occasionally going over a place and ... hunting. Under this recent case Sprott v. Sprott the title ... held by the plaintiff in the case is not a legal title, for ... the reason that the county treasurer had no authority to ... ...

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT