Streett v. Reynolds

• Decision Date: 10 October 1896
• Citation: 38 S.W. 150
• Parties: STREETT v. REYNOLDS.<SMALL><SUP>1</SUP></SMALL>
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

38 S.W. 150

STREETT v. REYNOLDS.¹

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

October 10, 1896.

Appeal from Chicot chancery court; James F. Robinson, Chancellor.

Action by William B. Streett against Daniel H. Reynolds. There was a judgment in favor of defendant, from which plaintiff appeals. Modified.

This is a bill to remove a cloud from the title to the west part of the N. E. ¼ of section 22, township 17 S., range 2 W. (7.7 acres), and the N. ½ of the N. W. ¼ of section 22, in the same township and range (69.8 acres), both of which tracts were wild and uncultivated, and not in the actual possession of any one, when this suit was brought. The facts as found by the chancellor are that a decree of condemnation under the overdue tax act was rendered at the January term, 1882, by the Chicot circuit court in chancery, based upon an arbitrary valuation of the lands condemned for sale, and not on the valuations placed on them by the assessor before the forfeiture, or by order of the court; that said decree, rendered at the January term, 1882 was set aside and held for naught at the July term, 1882, on the 25th of September, 1882 (which was an adjourned term of the court), as to the N. ½ N. W. ¼ section 22, township 17 S., range 2 W., but not as to the 7.7-acre tract. At said adjourned term, said tract in section 22, under order of the court, was reassessed by the assessor, and the court decreed said lands to be sold for the taxes, etc., and it was sold and purchased by the defendant, the appellee. Each of the said sales was reported to and confirmed by the court at said adjourned term, and the sale of the 7.7-acre tract was subsequently confirmed by the court at the July term, 1888, which was held by the regular judge; and the deed for the 69.8-acre tract in section 22 was approved at the July term, 1885. The adjourned term of the Chicot circuit court at which the tract in section 22 (N. ½ N. W. ¼) was ordered to be sold, and at which the sale was confirmed, was held by a special judge, and at the time it was held (September 25, 1882) the regular judge of that circuit was holding a regular term of the Bradley circuit court; i. e. on the 25th day of September, 1882, the day to which the Chicot circuit court had been adjourned by the regular judge on July 15, 1882. More than five years had elapsed since the date of the sale of said lands before this suit was brought, and neither party was in the actual possession of said lands. The chancellor held that the decrees under which said sale took place were void, and that the deeds for the same to the defendant were void, but that the plaintiff was bound by the five-years statute of limitations. The plaintiff appealed.

W. B. Streett, pro se. D. H. Reynolds, pro se.

HUGHES, J. (after stating the facts).

All questions of irregularity merely in the assessment...