Summers v. Brown

• Decision Date: 12 March 1923
• Docket Number: 226
• Citation: 248 S.W. 571,157 Ark. 509
• Parties: SUMMERS v. BROWN
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

248 S.W. 571

157 Ark. 509

SUMMERS v. BROWN

No. 226

Supreme Court of Arkansas

March 12, 1923

Appeal from St. Francis Chancery Court, A. L. Hutchins, Chancellor reversed.

Decree reversed, and cause remanded.

S S. Hargroves and John M. Prewett, for appellant.

Tax sale not invalid because tax charged in wrong name. C. & M Digest, § 10118; 134 Ark. 463. No excess fees charged. 61 Ark. 418. Action to test validity barred by 2 years statute. C. & M. Digest, § 10119; 46 Ark. 96; 55 Ark 192.

Mann & Mann, for appellee.

Equalization board required to complete work before convening of county court. 96 Ark. 92. Tax sale void account gross reduction in value. Equalization board without authority to assess property. 64 Ark. 436; 84 Ark. 347. Record must be kept. 111 Ark. 97. Sec. 10119, C. & M. Digest, not applicable in this case. Appellee being in possession, matters complained of for avoiding deed, statute would not bar. 46 Ark. 96; 53 Ark. 204; 55 Ark. 192; 120 Ark. 528.

OPINION

HUMPHREYS, J.

The issue presented and determined by the trial court in this case involved the validity of two tax deeds executed by T. C Merwin, county clerk of St. Francis County, on June 20, 1917, to appellant, pursuant to the certificates of purchase issued on the 14th day of June, 1915, under a sale of the land described in the deeds for the taxes of 1914. The lands are in sec. 32, township 6 N., range 2 E., one deed containing the S.W. 1/4 N.E. 1/4, assessed in 1913 at $ 160, and the other including the W. 1/2 of the N.W. 1/4 N.E. 1/4, assessed in the same year at $ 50. There was no assessment in 1914, the assessment of 1913 covering each year and holding good in 1914. In 1914 the clerk extended taxes against said S. W. 1/4 N.E. 1/4 upon all assessment or valuation of $ 80 instead of $ 160, and against the W. 1/2 of the N.W. 1/4 N.E. 1/4 upon an assessment or valuation of $ 25 instead of $ 50. This was done because the equalization board of the county appeared before the quorum court and asked said court to indorse the following resolution:

"Came N. B. Nelson, Lon Slaughter and W. R. Kendrick, the board of equalization, and presented a resolution asking approval and indorsement of their action in reducing the assessment of all the real and personal property of St. Francis County as returned by the assessment for 1914 on each list and tract of land 50 per cent. of its present valuation." According to the records of the proceedings of the quorum court, the above resolution was adopted, and five mills was levied on one-half of the assessed valuation of the real and personal property of the county.

The trial court canceled the tax deeds in question, upon the theory that the forfeiture for the nonpayment of taxes for the year 1914 was void, because the taxes were levied and extended against the lands for only 50 per cent. of their assessed value, instead of their assessed value. The trial court, in doing this, agreed with the contention of appellees to the effect that the levy and extension of the taxes on said lands were void because based upon an attempted blanket reduction of the assessed valuation of the lands in the county by the quorum court at the instance of the equalization board. It is true that the equalization board had no right at that time, under the statute, to make a blanket reduction of the assessments of lands in the county. Saline County v. Hughes, 84 Ark. 347. In fact, the equalization board had no right to equalize assessments of real estate at all in 1914. They only had the...