St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co. v. Greeson

• Decision Date: 17 December 1906
• Citation: 98 S.W. 728,81 Ark. 170
• Parties: ST. LOUIS, IRON MOUNTAIN & SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY v. GREESON
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

98 S.W. 728

81 Ark. 170

ST. LOUIS, IRON MOUNTAIN & SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY v. GREESON

Supreme Court of Arkansas

December 17, 1906

Appeal from Nevada Chancery Court; James D. Shaver, Chancellor affirmed.

STATEMENT BY THE COURT.

This suit was begun by the appellant to quiet title to the N.W 1/4, S.W. 1/4, sec. 30, T. 9 S., R. 22 W., in Nevada County.

Appellant claimed title from the Government through patent to the Cairo & Fulton Railroad Company, with which company it was consolidated.

To sustain its case, it introduced in evidence the patent of the United States to the State of Arkansas for the use and benefit of the Cairo & Fulton Railroad Company, and the certified copy of the articles of consolidation of the St Louis & Iron Mountain Railway Company with the Cairo & Fulton Railroad Company, forming appellant as a corporation and thereby conveying the tract in controversy to it. Appellee Greeson filed an answer, setting up conveyance from Giles to him of the premises, setting up title in Giles from the State by mesne conveyances, and setting up title in the State by reason of the sale of the land under an order and decree of the chancery court of Nevada County under the overdue tax act of 1881.

Giles the original defendant, answered, adopting the answer of Greeson. Defendants introduced in evidence the records of the chancery court of Nevada County in an overdue tax proceeding instituted under the act of 1881, showing the complaint was filed as authorized by the statute against the tract of land in controversy, among others, for overdue delinquent taxes that warning order was issued and entered on record as required by statute, and that on August 10, 1882, decree was entered by the court at its regular term, which recites the entry of the warning order and recites:

"That it appears that the clerk of this court caused the said order to be published as required by law and did give the notice as required by law, and that the proof of the publication of which notice, verified as required by law, was filed as required by law."

And the court decreed that the above described land was subject to a tax penalty and costs of $ 11.05, and that it, with several hundred other tracts against which taxes were decreed as a lien, be advertised and sold by George Christopher, commissioner, on the 18th day of September, 1882.

On February 23, 1883, the commissioner filed his report, showing as follows: On the 18th day of September, 1882, the day fixed for said sale, I sold all the said lands mentioned in the said decree as follows, towit: (here follows a description by legal subdivisions of lands mentioned in the decree and the amounts for which they were sold, but the tract in controversy is not included in the list) and the report continues as follows: "and that all the balance of said lands as described in said decree was sold to the State of Arkansas, all of which is respectfully submitted. [Signed] George Christopher, Commissioner."

Which said report, the record showed, was "submitted to the court, and upon examination the court approved and confirmed same in all things."

No advertisement or notice of sale by the commissioner was introduced in evidence in this case or in any way shown.

Decree affirmed.

B. S. Johnson and S. R. Allen, for appellant.

The jurisdiction of the commissioner to sell the lands depended upon the notice of the sale as well as the decree under the law by which the proceeding was had. Act March 12, 1881 §§ 9; 14. In overdue tax cases the report of sale and the...