The comet. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1877-1882, 1879-02-08
THos. B. CARUrHERs, ct al.
VS.. mo. 2907.l
HuAprpC MrTAp1N-


vs. mo. 29O7.
CHARLES MCLARAN
Defendant il error brought ejectment
against plaintiff in error to recover certain
, lands, claiming under tax title.
The lands were sold Ma, oh 1st, 1875, and
sold May 1OCh 1875 (the latter sale being
under the Abatement Aot') and bought
by the State at both sales. They were de-
linquent for taxes of 1874 only.
McLaran purchased the land from the
State Oct Dist, 1876, the deed rec ting that
the lands were sold to the Stlte May 10th,
1875, (the latter sale being under the
Abatement Act aud bought by the
State at both sales. They were delinquent
for taxes of 1874, only.
McLaran purchased the land from the
State October 2lst, 1876, the deed reciting
that the lands were sold to the State May
10, 1875. There being some error in the
description of the lands, McLaran, on
the 4th of January, 1877, took another
deed from the Auditor, Gin lieu of the first,
with the lands properly described, which
last named deed also recited that the lands
we're sold to the State May 10, 1875. On
10Th of January, 1877, the owners of the
lands (Nho were landlords of plaintiffs in
error, applied to the Chancery Clerk of the
county, but was refused because of the
purchase from the State by AcLaran. At
the trial below, McLaran offered in evil
dence the list of lands sold to the State
March l, 1875, to which defendants (plain-
tiffs III error objected, but said objection
was overruled. Defendants then moved to
exclude both the plaintiffs Deeds because
the Acknowledgements thereof by the Audi
tor failed to state that they We're executed
"on the day and year therein mentioned"
which motion was overruled.
SIMRALL, G. j.
Held
|. The point made on the acknowledge
ment of the Auditor is not well taken. The
same objection Gin substance) was held not
to be a material defect in Hall Vs. Thomp-
son, S. Il NJ. 456, and Morse ct al VS..
Clayton, 10 S. & NJ. 1913. 1t is not neces-
sarily part of the office of an acknowl.
edgment to fix the date of the delivery
2. The tenor of the legislation on the
subject of the sale of lands acquired by
the State at tax sales, is, that the Auditor
of Public Accounts shall, on payment of
the price, execute to the purchaser deed
which shall pass such title as the State has.
3. The right of redemption as treated of
in the first part of the 18th section of the |
g Abatement Act" has relation to lands |
upon which taxes had been RENTED except
for the year 1874.
4. The taxes for the year 1874, were not
delinquent until the lst of January 1874,
md the sale was properly made under the
9TH Article, 22nd Chapter of the Code, ex-
,ept so far as modified as to time of sale by |
the provision in the Act of 1874 and the |
Act of January %, 1875.
g. A right of redemption by the owner
or claimant of the land attached as an i'm
cident of the sale ON the 1st of March, 1875. |
The sale by the Auditor prior to its expira
ton was without authority of law, and the |
tender of redemption by Moore & Co., (the |
landlord of plaintiffs in error was in due
time, being within two years after the sale. |
Judgment reversed and cause remanded. !