The Greenville times. [volume] (Greenville, Miss.) 1868-1917, 1886-12-18
srPREMR COTRT DECISlON.
ANAL. MoCULLoCH ETAE,l7
WV Srnrr A1rn1ropi I

hANNAL. MoCULLoCH ET4EG
Ii go
WV. STONE, AUDITOR.
Appeal from the Circuit Court of
Hrnds-county. Benz. W. Hirsch
and Calvin Perkins for appel.
1ants-Attorney General Miller
and w. A, Percy for appellee.
Opinion of the coCrt by Cooper,
, @. j., facts stated in the opinion.
IrytThis is a petition for a smanda.
mus against the Auditor to make
him convey to the petitioners the
ktitle to ,certain State hands, To
the petition the Auditor interpos.
ed, q demurrer. which was sustained
in the lower court, and from .hat
Judgment an appeal is prose.
cuted. In the petition the follow.
ing history of the title is given.
In 1862 the lands. we're sold for
tAe taxes Of 1851 dncluding the
military tax. levied for the support
ofthe armies Of the Confederate
States, and we're bought by, the
State; in the years 1868 and 1872
the lands were sold for the non
payment of the liquidating levee
iaxes and bought by the Levee
Board; in 1876 they were again
sold by the Sheriff and Tax Col.
Hector UNDER The act iof' March,
1875, commonly known as the
f"Abatement Act,n again bought
by the State; in 1881 they we're
sold under the decree of the Chan
cepy Court of Kinds county made
in the case eff Green vs. Gibbs ct
al, 56 Miss, and'were purchased by
the L., n. o. s. I. RailroadlOo.
l,Oh September 80, 1884, the Au.
ditor acting under the act of the
Iegislatafe approved March IA,
1884, executed and delivered to-
the said Company a iqsit claim
deed conveying the States inter.
| est therein 4 afterwards the ap.
pellants rendered to the Auditor
the sum which appeared on the
books Of his Office to have been
due the State, On account of the
taxes due, thereon, and demanded
a deed which he refused to make,
giving, as the petition statesfSno
6tlisr reason than that the State
had no title or claim to the land,
because of the execution Of the
pretended, relase and gut claim Of
Sept. 80, 1884. BY the, demurrer
however, the Auditor set up the
lfvtAep objection that the State
Fnevef fad ANY vafid title to the
land. In support of this defence,
1t Is argued that the first salecto
the'State was void for the reason
that q part of the tax for, which, it
was made was In 'aid Of the rebel
4 hon I; thatlas the sale was void,
1.-THE land was legally sold to the
ILiquidating Levee Board which
acquired q good title thereto, and
that after ii became the property
kof the ,LeyeeyBoard, il was exempt
kffom sales, forltaxes tldd the StRte;
Ewherefore the sdIe in 1875 WAS
also a nullity.
We dispose of this question by
saying;r ~ ~ M
| First. The Auditor admits by
| his demurrer that the sole ground
upon which he had declined to
j make the Conveyance to the e-peti.
toner was that. the State had
parted with its title, he did not
therefore refuse,bscause the State
Tnever had any title. n
i Secopd. II Is sfot within the
province Of the Auditor to Otter.
mine the validity Of q tax title
acquirsd by Tie State, The!in.
4 validity ofxtax title can only be
deterl1jned BY the counts, except
where b pon ths advice of Tile AT.
tornsy General the "A nditof is per-
mitted to- strike from his list Of
lands those which, m The. opinion
of the law officers of the State, are
not held by valid title.
Finally, this court will not upon
mandamps, inquire into or deter.
mine the validity of such titles.
| Where mandamus is sought to
compel the execution of a con-
Itveyance and the objection is matle
4 thatthe Spte lMd Do title because
/ llit bas alfeadyiparted with IL II
becomes necessary to decide the
| question, for only bI such decision
can we determine whether the
court ought to act-State VS.. My.
ers 61 MISS, 1873.
Whatever then is the character
OF the States title, acquired, under
the sale for taxes, the petitioners
are entitled to have it conveyed
to them, upon the payment of the
sum claimed against it by the
State, unless there has been an
authorized transfer of it by the
States officers competent to con.
I vey her tito. The real ground of
the refusal by the Auditor to con.
vey to the petitioners is that by
/ the deed ofa,Sept. 80, 1884, the
State had parted with all claims to
the land. If this be true, the Au-
ditor properly refused TO mako
another conveyance.
= The authority Of the Auditor to
make the conveyance of Sept. 80,
1884, is derived from an Act en-.
titled "An Act for the benefit Of
the purchasers Of levee lands sold
under the decree of the Chancery
Court Of Kinds county, LIST Dis.
trlct, in the case of Joshua Green
and others, against Hemingway
and Gibbs, Treasurer and Audi
tor; and ex officio Liquidatng
Leyee Commissioners approved
March IA, 1884. f ;"
BY the first section of that Act,
the Auditor is directed to quit
claim the title of the State to the
purchasers under the decree re.
| oitad in IL unnn tiia uavmpnt nf