Tatum v. Smith

• Decision Date: 10 November 1930
• Docket Number: 28800
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: TATUM v. SMITH

130 So. 683

158 Miss. 511

TATUM v. SMITH

No. 28800

Supreme Court of Mississippi

November 10, 1930

Division A

1 TAXATION. Order increasing assessment, if void, should be dis-regarded, thereby leaving original assessment in force (Laws 1920, chapter 323, section 7; Hemingway's Code 1927, section 8251).

The state tax commission directed the board of supervisors to raise the assessments of certain classes of property including real estate. The order was complied with by the board at a special meeting, and the minutes set forth the call for the meeting, but failed to disclose that notice thereof was published as provided by law.

2 TAXATION.

If order increasing taxes was void, tax sale was valid where taxpayer did not tender taxes due under original assessment (Laws 1920, chapter 323, section 7; Hemingway's Code 1927, section 8251).

HON. R. E. JACKSON, Chancellor.

APPEAL from chancery court of Bolivar county, First district, HON. R. E. JACKSON, Chancellor.

Suit by Harrison Smith against Mrs. J. H. Tatum, in which defendant filed a cross-bill. From the decree, defendant appeals. Reversed, and bill dismissed.

Reversed and bill dismissed.

Somerville & Somerville, of Cleveland, and Howorth & Howorth, of Jackson, for appellant.

If the appellee wanted to object to the horizontal raise in his assessment it was up to him to tender to the sheriff taxes in the proper amount to pay the taxes on the valuation as fixed at the August meeting and since he failed to pay or to tender anything at all he cannot make objection to the sale of the land for taxes.

Robertson, Revenue Agent, v. First National Bank, 115 Miss. 840, 76 So. 689.

No tax conveyance shall be invalidated in any court except by proof that the land was not liable to sell for the taxes, or that the tax for which the land was sold had been paid before sale.

Sec. 4332, Code 1906, sec. 8251, Hemingway's Code 1927.

J. C. Walker, of Shaw, for appellee.

The minutes of the meeting of the board of supervisors did not show that the notice required by section 6, chapter 98, Laws of 1916 had been posted at the court house or published in a newspaper as required by said section. This was a fatal and incurable defect and gave the board no jurisdiction and rendered its entire proceedings void.

Robertson v. First Nat. Bank, 76 So. 689; Henderson-Molpus Company v. Gammill, 149 Miss. 576, 115 So. 716; Gordon v. Smith, 154 Miss. 787, 122 So. 762.

In this state boards of supervisors are very largely legislative bodies. It is true they are also quasi-judicial bodies for they must exercise discretion and judgment. But they are not courts in the sense that the circuit and chancery courts are courts. They have no inherent powers. They have no authority at a subsequent term to correct their orders and judgments entered at former terms.

Lafayette County v. Parks, 132 Miss. 752, 96 So. 466; Cuevas v. Cuevas, 145 Miss. 456, 110 So. 866.

No taxes are due under a void assessment and no tender is necessary.

Reed v. Heard, 53 So. 400.

Argued orally by A. D. Somerville, for appellant.

OPINION

Smith, C. J.

The appellee exhibited an original bill against appellant, alleging that she was the owner of a certain lot in the town of Shaw, and that the appellant was claiming title thereto under a void tax sale, and prays for a cancellation of the appellant's tax deed, as a cloud on the appellee's title.

The appellant filed an answer and cross-bill. A demurrer to the cross-bill was sustained. The case was then heard on bill, answer, and agreed statement of facts, and a decree was rendered canceling the appellant's tax deed.

In September, 1926, the state tax commission directed the board of supervisors to raise the assessments of certain classes of property, including real estate in cities, towns, and villages. This order of the tax commission was complied with by the board at a special meeting held on September 25th. The minutes set forth the call for the meeting, but fail to disclose that this notice thereof was published as provided by law. The omission from the minutes of this jurisdictional fact is alleged to, and we will assume for the purpose of the argument does, render this order of the board void.

Was the tax sale void? Section 4332, Code of 1906, Hemingway's Code 1927, section 8251, which designates the effect of a tax collector's deed to land sold by him for taxes due thereon, provides that "no such conveyance shall be invalidated in any court except by proof that the land was not liable to sale for the taxes, or that the taxes for which the land was sold had been paid before sale, or that the sale had been made at the wrong time or place; and, if any part of the taxes for which the land was sold was illegal or not chargeable on it, but part was chargeable, that shall not affect the sale nor invalidate the conveyance, unless it appear that before sale the amount legally chargeable on the land was paid or tendered to the tax collector."

The bill of complaint does not allege, and the record...