The clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1883-1888, 1884-11-19
SUPREME COURT CASES.
Reported for The Clarion. BY H. r. Parker,
Astorssysi Law, Jackson, Miss
OCTOBER rERsI-Iss4.
W. H. coRBuRS


WI. coRBuRN
o. B. CRtTTENDEN
From the Circuit Court of Washington
County. B. F. Trimble, Judge
Tar title. Erideace Irregularities in
list, deed. ETC.
CAMPBELL, G. J.
Certain lots in GreeEville we're sold to
the State for non-payment Of taxes of
1881. A list of lands sold to the State,
including these lots. was certified to the
Auditor By the Sheriff and Tax Collee-
| tor. On March z, 1888, one year and a
/ day after the sale 10 the State, the Audi
! tor conveyed these lots by deed to Crit
| teuden, who brought eiectment against
/ the possessor of the lots, and on the
/ trial offered the list and deed in eyi-
dence. Defendant objected to their in
PRODUCTION, on various grounds, and the
objections we're oYerruled Defendant
then offered certain testimony, which
was ruled out; and the court instructed
the jury to find for plaintiff.
The heading of the list shows when
the property was sold; but the certih-
cate itself is not dated, nor is there any
thing about it showing when it was re
ceived at the Auditors office The omis
sion of these dates was not material, and
did not vitiate the sale. 1t will be pre-
sumed that the officers performed their
duty as to time, even if time as to this
is material.
The objection that three lots wert
sold together for one single tax and
costs is without force. They may have
been, and presumably were assessed to
gether for single sum as one tract.
The sale for more than could be law
fully claimed for taxes and costs, i
} there was in fact such excess, did no
/ invalidate the sale.
! The deed does not show the amour
!, of State taxes and damages, tht
amount of county taxes and dam
] ages, and the amount of other taxes ant
damages, as prescribed by 1852, Code o
1880. But there is endorsed upon it
statement of the different funds TO
! which the taxes were levied, and of tn
t fees, commissions and costs of the differ
Y ent officers; and we think that the re
: duirement of the statute was substanti
ally complied with, and its object full,
met, and that the deed was properl.
z, admitted in evidence.
/ The evidence offered by defendant t
;. show the value of the lots, and thei
ownership at different dates, and TN
: exemption from taxation of the right 0
way of the G. G. & b. r. r. Co., owe
- one of them, was all irrelevant.
n The board of supervisors, it appear
met on the first Monday Of August, t
. examine the assessment roll, rejected il
y and adopted the vicious practice, AM
o madverted upon by this court in Ho
+ q. Murphy, 60 Miss, /, of appointing tt
assessor to complete it. This appoint
{ ment, though reprehensible, did no
:, make tie assessment completed by hin
e illegal.
: On August Is, the board met and TT
ceiyed the roll, and ordered that all OF
!! jections to it be filed by September
q On September s, the board met to &C
on the assessment roll, and proceeded t
h do so. 1t does not appear that du
notice was given of these special meet
{ ings; but meetings of boards of superyi
y sors, unless shown afiirfnatiyeIy 10 hav
+ been not according to law, are presum
ed to have been legal. origins o. CItaac
Ter, 60 Miss, 862. If the captions t
e the minutes of these meetings were be
e fore us, it might appear that they wer
Il called and held as prescribed by Law
!, 1t is to the caption, and not an orde
during a meeting, that we look for
J. statement of the organization of til
S body holding session.
D The objection that fram August Is t
i September s, was less time than tn
3 landowners were entitled to, is nc
= valid. 1t was for the board of super
u visors to prescribe the time
f We find no error for which the jude
ment should be disturbed. 4Birmed.
5. II. King, and w. Z. h J. B. Harri
for appellant.
y Leroy Percy and VIM. Griffin, fo
y appellee.