Williams v. State

• Decision Date: 08 July 1906
• Citation: Williams v. State, 88 S.W. 980, 76 Ark. 290 (Ark. 1906)
• Parties: WILLIAMS v. STATE
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

88 S.W. 980

76 Ark. 290

WILLIAMS v. STATE

Supreme Court of Arkansas

July 8, 1906

Appeal from St. Francis Circuit Court, HANCE N. HUTTON, Judge.

Affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

S. H Mann and Rose, Hemingway & Rose, for appellant.

Authority to reject or confirm sales must be exercised according to legal principles, and the court's action is subject to correction upon appeal to the circuit court, where the question is tried de novo. Kirby's Dig. § 1492; 33 Ark. 508; 43 Ark. 42; 34 Ark. 240. A bidder at a judicial sale has rights which a court of equity will protect. 36 Ark 591; 17 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 996. The sale will not be set aside for inadequacy of price, unless it is so great as to shock the conscience. 124 F. 133; 65 Ark. 152; 44 Ark. 502; 47 Ark. 518; 56 Ark. 242. And this was not established. 163 U.S. 110; 50 Ark. 511.

Robert L. Rogers, Attorney General, for appellee.

The county court had authority to set aside the sale for inadequate price and order another sale. 74 Ark. 361.

MCCULLOCH J. HILL, C. J., absent and not participating.

OPINION

MCCULLOCH, J.

This is an appeal from the judgment of the circuit court rejecting and refusing to confirm a sale of school lands made by the collector. Exceptions to the collector's report of sale were filed in the county court by certain citizens, and that court sustained the exceptions, and rejected the sale. On appeal, the circuit court heard the cause upon oral testimony establishing the market value of the lands, and found that it was sold for an inadequate price, and for that reason rejected the sale.

It cannot reasonably be contended that the finding of the court as to the value of the land is not sustained by the evidence, but appellants urged that, the sale having been properly and regularly made on petition of a majority of the adult inhabitants of the township, as provided by statute (this fact being admitted), it was the duty of the county court to confirm it, notwithstanding the inadequacy of the price. They invoke the application of the rule that a judicial sale which has been regularly and fairly made will not be set aside for mere inadequacy of price unless the inadequacy be so great as to shock the judicial sense of justice. But a sale of school land by the collector upon petition of the inhabitants of the township is not a judicial sale, though the statute requires that it must be confirmed by the county court. It is purely a statutory proceeding, and the statute alone must be looked to in ascertaining its terms and effect.

The statute provides that the collector, after having advertised, appraised and sold the land, shall "report all sales to the county court, which may reject or confirm the same," and that, "if any sale be rejected, the county court may direct the collector to again advertise and offer the land, and may specify the minimum price at which the tract or tracts may be sold, not to be less than two-thirds of the appraised value." Kirby's Digest, § 7707.

This court in a recent opinion concerning the power and duty of the county court with reference to such sales, said "The authority to order the sale being in the male inhabitants, the jurisdiction of the county court is confined to protecting the inhabitants against a...