Trotter v. Roper

• Decision Date: 14 January 1957
• Docket Number: No. 40349,40349
• Citation: 229 Miss. 784,92 So.2d 230
• Parties: G. J. TROTTER v. Frank C. ROPER et al.
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court

Page 230

92 So.2d 230

229 Miss. 784

G. J. TROTTER v. Frank C. ROPER et al.

No. 40349.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Jan. 14, 1957.

G. J. Trotter, pro se.

C. W. Sullivan, Hattiesburg, for appellee.

LEE, Justice.

G. J. Trotter, acting for himself and without the counsel or assistance of a lawyer, on January 27, 1955, filed his bill of complaint against Frank C. Roper and others, the claimants of the surface and mineral rights in and to 40 acres of land, as described therein. By his deraignment he showed title to the land out of the United States, and, by mesne conveyances, into himself on December 29, 1927. He alleged that diligent search of the records failed to reveal that the land was advertised for sale, or was legally sold, for taxes during the year 1937; that he was not given notice in 1939 that it had been sold or that he would lose possession, if it was not redeemed; and that, for these reasons, a tax deed to the land from E. E. Hudson, chancery clerk, to D. Seward of date of November 7, 1939, duly of record, was an error. In the deraignment, however, he listed two deeds from the tax collector dated September 19, 1938, and September 19, 1939, as well as mineral conveyances, and a deed from D. Seward to J. C. Edwards, dated November 19, 1940, for the surface. He further alleged that much timber and a good wire fence were removed from the land. The prayer of the bill was for confirmation of his title, and the execution of a deed to him for that purpose.

The answer of the defendants averred that the complainant, as the owner, was assessed for the taxes on this land for 1936 and 1937; that the taxes for 1936 were not paid, and that the tax collector, on the third Monday and 20th day of September, 1937, sold the land for the 1936 taxes to D. Seward; that E. E. Hudson, chancery clerk, on November 7, 1939, after title had ripened, executed a valid deed of conveyance to D. Seward for the land, a true copy of which was attached; that on November 19, 1940, D. Seward conveyed the land to J. C. Edwards; and that, following this conveyance, J. C. Edwards went into immediate possession and has claimed the same ever since--more than 10 years before the filing of this suit. The defendants made their answer a cross bill and deraigned the title fully, among other things, exhibiting true and correct copies of the tax deed from Hudson, chancery clerk, to Seward, and the deed from Seward to Edwards, supra. They also alleged that they had been in possession of, and had claimed, the land for more than 10 years by adverse possession, detailing various possessory acts and alleging that they were the acts of which the land was susceptible; and that they had acquired title to the land by adverse possession. They prayed that their claim of title, both to the land and the minerals, should be quieted and confirmed against the complainant, and that his claim thereto should be cancelled.

In his answer thereto, the complainant denied that the land was sold on the third Monday of September, 1937, and that the tax deed was valid. He admitted that 'A more complete destruction of everything of value could not have been accomplished by an army with orders to obliterate it'. Thereafter, in an additional amendment, the complainant asked leave to add the name of George Husband as a defendant, and charged that he combined and co-operated with the other defendants to deprive him of the use of his land since 1941, and that a residence on the land was removed or destroyed. By a subsequent amendment, he attached certified copies of the land assessment roll for 1940, a list of lands sold to individuals on September 20, 1937, which incidentally showed this land was sold and that notice thereof to the owner had been issued, a sketch of the land, the deed from D. Seward to J. C. Edwards, and a mineral transfer from D. Seward to Frank C. Roper.

The complainant, testifying for himself, denied that the land was advertised for sale, but he offered no proof whatever to establish this. He said that he did not receive notice of the sale or that the title would become absolute in the purchaser unless it was redeemed by a certain date. He said that he went to the chancery clerk in January 1940 for the purpose of redeeming the land, but that the clerk informed him that it was too late to do this. He admitted that the whole basis of his complaint was the tax sale, which he contended was invalid for the reason that the sale was not advertised and that he was not given notice about redemption. His excuse for not filing a suit within ten years from the time that the defendants went into possession was his financial inability to do so.

At the close of the evidence, the court granted a decree upholding the validity of the tax sale and...