State v. Mathews
| Decision Date | 01 November 1910 |
| Parties | STATE v. MATHEWS et al. RICHARDS et al. v. MONTGOMERY et al. |
| Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
When land is sold for delinquent taxes, assessed thereon in the name of the owner of a freehold estate therein less than the fee, and is purchased by the state, and not redeemed within one year thereafter, the state thereby acquires, not only the estate of the person assessed with the taxes, but also the estate of the reversioner or remainderman.
A sale and conveyance of the state's land in the manner provided by chapter 105, Code 1906, creates a new title, and estops the state from again selling the same land, unless there be a forfeiture of the new title.
Section 19, c. 105, Code 1906, is retroactive and curative. It is designed to validate, and to make good, the titles of purchasers of the state's lands which they have acquired through defective proceedings or deeds under chapter 105. Said section has the force of a legislative grant of the state's land to all such purchasers thereof prior to the time when chapter 42, Acts 1905, took effect and who have since their purchase kept the taxes paid on said land.
Said section operates to vest in such purchasers who have paid all the purchase money all the title the state had in the land at the date of the sale or conveyance, notwithstanding the proceeding to sell the land may not have been brought against the person, or persons, having the right of redemption.
The words, "since the ninth day of April one thousand eight hundred and seventy three," occurring in section 39, c 31, Code 1906, mean all time after the 9th of April, 1873.
One having neither title to nor right to redeem land cannot maintain a suit in equity respecting same.
(Additional Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)
An estate in land during the life of another is a freehold estate.
A deed by the state of land forfeited for nonpayment of taxes, describing the land as "a tract of 100 acres of land, situated in Fayetteville District on Mossey creek, Fayette county, West Virginia," and referring to a commissioner's report and other papers in the proceeding "for further and more accurate description," which report of the commissioner filed before the sale, described the land by referring to a previous deed, by date, and the book and page where recorded, sufficiently described the land in view of the maxim that that is certain which is capable of being made certain.
The word "since" is not always limited in meaning to the time between the present and a certain past event or a space of time between two certain past events, but sometimes reaches beyond the present and embraces future time, and, when used as a preposition, may mean "during or within the time after; ever after, or at a time after; from and after the time, occurrence, or existence of."
Appeal from Circuit Court, Fayette County.
Consolidated actions by the State against A. F. Mathews and others, and by J. M. Richards and others against Alma Montgomery and others. From the decree, Alma Montgomery and others appeal. Reversed and rendered.
Brown, Jackson & Knight and Payne & Hamilton, for appellants.
Maynard F. Stiles, for appellees.
Alma Montgomery and others have appealed from a decree of the circuit court of Fayette county, made on December 6, 1907, permitting L. E. Poteet and E. L. Nuckols to redeem from alleged forfeiture a tract of 100 acres of land claimed by appellants.
Peachy Williams became the owner in 1865 of a larger tract of land, and in 1869 she and her husband, Linas Williams, attempted to convey out of it the 100 acres in question in fee to Elias Lively. This deed is inoperative as a conveyance of the wife's interest, because of defects in the certificate of her acknowledgment. Linas Williams died in 1895, and his wife, Peachy, died prior thereto. Poteet and Nuckols claim the land by mesne conveyances from the heirs of Peachy Williams. The first deed bears date March 1, 1897, and was made to J. M. Richards for the undivided half. Richards and wife conveyed same to L. E. Poteet and E. L. Nuckols March 16, 1903. The heirs of Peachy Williams conveyed the other half to M. F. Gunnoe by deed August 29, 1902, and Gunnoe and wife conveyed same to Poteet and Nuckols on December 6, 1902. Appellants claim title to the same land as follows, viz.: Deed from H. A. Robson, commissioner of school lands, to J. M. Johnson, May 28, 1890, J. M Johnson and wife to Meredith Settle, July 1, 1891, and Meredith Settle to appellants February 18, 1901. In order to ascertain the state's title, and what right, if any, it had to sell the land in 1890, we must return to the deed made by Peachy Williams and her husband in 1869 to Elias Lively. Notwithstanding this deed was inoperative to convey the wife's fee-simple estate, it nevertheless purported to convey the fee; and Elias Lively and wife conveyed it to M. A. Fisher January 16, 1871. M. A. Fisher made no conveyance of the land, and died intestate in 1874, leaving two children--Mary A., who married Elias Humphreys, and Eliza J., who married Joseph Woods. L. E. Poteet and E. L. Nuck ols also claim by mesne conveyances from these two heirs of Margaret A. Fisher whatever title or right, if any, in the land descended to them on the death of their mother. The land does not appear to have been for any considerable length of time in the actual possession of any one. The state, claiming the land by virtue of delinquent tax sales made in the name of M. A. Fisher prior to 1890, in that year proceeded by H. A. Robson, commissioner of school lands, to sell it, and did sell it at public sale to J. M. Johnson at the price of $250; and on the 28th of May, 1890, said Johnson received from the commissioner a deed. Whatever title was thereby vested in J. M. Johnson has passed by the several mesne conveyances to appellants, as above set forth.
At April rules, 1902, another commissioner of school lands, successor to H. A. Robson, filed a petition against this land, again alleging its forfeiture to the state in the name of M. A. Fisher's heirs for nonentry from 1885 to 1902. This petition is against "the unknown heirs of M. A. Fisher, dec'd," and avers their right to redeem. These appellants filed their petition in that proceeding averring their title and the manner of its acquisition. The cause was heard on said petition on the 27th of May, 1902, and a decree was made which held that appellants had paid to the commissioner of school lands $71.75, the taxes, interest, and costs due on the land for the years 1888, 1889, 1890, and 1896, being the years for which the court found the taxes unpaid, and a redemption by said appellants was decreed. The court at a subsequent term, May 23, 1903, ignored this decree and referred the cause to a commissioner to ascertain and report whether or not the tract of land was forfeited to the state, and, if so, in whose name, the amount of taxes and costs due the state, whether any person was in the position to take the benefit of the forfeiture under section 3, art. 13, Const. (Code 1906, p. lxxxiv), and who, if any, of the defendants was entitled to redeem.
Shortly before this decree of reference was made, L. E. Poteet and E. L. Nuckols had filed their joint petition in the cause, praying to be allowed to redeem. And J. M. Richards had in June, 1902, filed an original bill against appellants, praying for a cancellation of the deeds through which they claimed title. A demurrer to this bill was sustained; and at the November rules, 1903, a joint amended bill was filed by said Richards, Poteet, and Nuckols. Appellants demurred to, and answered, the amended bill, and the two causes were heard together upon the pleadings, petition, the reports of the commissioner, exceptions thereto, and depositions of witnesses; and on the 6th of December, 1907, the decree complained of was made. The commissioner reported that the land had been sold three times for delinquent taxes in the name of M. A. Fisher, first, in 1881, second, in 1886, and again in January, 1888; that it had not been redeemed and was forfeited to the state; that it had been stricken from the land books in 1886, and did not thereafter appear until 1891 when it was charged to J. M. Johnson; that it was sold in May, 1890, by H. A. Robson, commissioner of school lands, and purchased by J. M. Johnson at the price of $250; that on the 28th of May, 1890, said commissioner conveyed it to said Johnson by deed. This portion of the commissioner's report is not excepted to, and, being a report upon matters of fact, must be taken as true. Chapman v. Pittsburgh & S. R. Co., 18 W.Va. 184; Ward v. Ward, 21 W.Va. 262; Lynch v. Henry, 25 W.Va. 416; Chapman v. McMillan, 27 W.Va. 220; Poling v. Huffman, 48 W.Va. 639, 37 S.E. 526. The report also ascertains that M. A. Fisher was the owner of an estate during the life of Linas Williams only, and finds that upon his death the estate in remainder in the 100 acres of land passed to the heirs of Peachy Williams. The commissioner furthermore reported that, inasmuch as M. A. Fisher had an estate in the land only during the life of Linas Williams, the state acquired, by the purchase for delinquent taxes and the failure of the owner to redeem, no greater estate than she had, and that L. E. Poteet and E. L. Nuckols, having acquired the estate in remainder from the heirs of Peachy Williams, had the right of redemption. This presents the principal legal question involved, and was excepted to by appellants. But their exceptions were overruled and the report confirmed.
The principal error we find is in the court's holding that by the tax sale and forfeiture the state did not acquire title to an estate in fee in the land. Some of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial