The comet. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1877-1882, 1879-05-03
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS,
Reported Weekly by Jenkins
a. Little, Attorneys al Law.
MONDAY, April %, 1879,

MONDAY, April 2S, 1879
BETTE A. VAUGHAN, ct al
VS..
w. II. SwAYzIE, ct al.
Error TO the Circuit Court of Adams
county, Hon. Ralph North, Judge
The plaintiffs in error brought unlawful
detainer to recover lands forfeited to the
State under their purchases from the Audi
tor in 1873 and 1875. The plaintiffs pro-
duced the delinquent list fled in the Clerks
office. but when produced there was shown
n fatal variance between the list and the
deed received from the Auditor. The deed
was to Commencement" plantation cons
tanning thirteen hundred and thirty acres.
While the delinquent list showed a forfeit
ture Of only five hundred and fifty acres.
There was nothing to show to which $50
acres out of the total of 1880 acres the
State had obtained title, and plaintiffs,
though granted permission by the Court to
do SO. confessed their inability to identity
them.
The plaintiffs also offered in evidence a
deed to the lOc1tS IN quo made to the State
by the Collector in 1873, by virtue OF sale
for the unpaid taxes of 1872. This deed
was also excluded by the Court.
The tax collector of Adams county failed
to return his delinquent list on the first
Monday of December 1872, and did not,
in fact, return them until first Monday in
January 1873. This fact being admitted,
tho Court below excluded the deed to the
land in question executed by the tax collec-
tor on Bird of May, 1873 But before the
making of such deed-to-wit: 81 February,
1873, by an act in 1873 for relief of VIM.
McCary--the Legislature had enacted ''that
the delinquent list for Adams county shall
be valid" etc.
But it is urged that the proceedings for
the condemnation of land for taxes under
the act of 1872, were Judicial in their ma
ture as held in Weir VS. Kitchens 50 Miss,
a. and that inasmuch as the citation to
the delinquent tax payer provided for by
that Act was issued and served in the pro-
ceedings before the Board of Supervisors
of Adams county for the condemnation of
this land before the passage by the Legisla-
ture of this curative Act of Feb. 21st, 1873,
the utmost effect of that Act was to entitle
the State to institute new proceedings, and
that it was not competent for the Legisla-
ture to affect in any manner the quasi suit
then pending.
In this instance, the citation to the owns
ers, of the land issued 14th January 1873,
and was served 18th February therefor.
BY it they were summoned to appear before
the Board of Supervisors and show cause
why the land should not be condemned on
third of March. Before that time arrived
-to-wit, on Dist of Febrary-the curative
Act was passed by which the irregularity
in the return Of tho delinquent list list was
validated.
CHALMERS, J.,
Held
l. The plaintiff who rests his title upon a
d tax deed received from the Auditor of {
Public Accounts is not protected under the i
statutory provisions which, under $500 of t
he Code of 1871, attach to the tax collec- i
or's deed, but by the production of the c
delinquent list, must show title in the State. S
Jlymer VS.. Cameron, 80 Miss 593.
2. There being a variance between Audi S
ors deed and the list of lands forfeited, if t
he States title depended alone upon the c
he forfeiture of 1875, the action of the i
court in excluding the Auditors deed a
would have been correct But plaintiff S
offered in evidence his deed dated 1873 for
'or forfeitures of 1872. The Court erred {
IN excluding this deed. The Act of 1878 t
,or benefit of McCary, have cured the c
in not returning the list of for 7
,eited lands. The Legislature has the the l
constitutional right to pass such laws to
operate retrospectively, and their effect is L
cure such irregularities as occurred in this I
Instance is universally now conceded. G
3. While it is true that the Legislature
cannot validate void judicial acts, nor in> i
5erfere in anyway with the judgments of a
ihe Courts, either to ratify or nullify them, a
itigants before judgments where their r
dalm OF ueIehce depends upon an lnIofIndH-
y not affecting substantial legal rights OF t
'quity have no vested interest in existing +
ogislation, and where the Legislative i
power to pass the new law, is undoubt- J
I'd; as it is in this case, it applies as well to
pending as to future suits.
The owners of this land were bound to S
AXE notice of this Act.
4. The deed being in all respects regular t
lpon its face, and having been executed r
lnder and by virtue of valid sale, the I
Court erred in excluding it. Z