The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1889-05-25

the Chancery Court Of Tunica County. Ii
Is most important decision, as it is sup
posed to affect property to the value of
many millions OF dollars in the Yazoo
Delta. The correspondent OF THE APPEAL
at Jackson, Miss, was not entirely correct
In his report OF the decision on the day OF
its delivery, and the decision in full is
given here below
Perkins & Percy, solicitors for appel
lants; ID. NJ. Scales and A. S. Buchanan
for appelloes.
Judge Cooper delivered the opinion Of
the Court.
The Chancellor did not err in retaining
the cross bill and permitting complainants
therein TO proceed with II as the original
bill. In Belcher W.. Wilkinson, 81 Miss.
6II, there was no order Of court retaining
the cross bill, while in the case now before
us the order OF the chancellor expressly
retained the cross bill las an original
bill, F" and directed process to be issued on
1t as such. The appellant entered her APP
| pearance and answered, thus waving the
process directed TO be issued.
Proceeding to the main questions in
TO compainants' title that as heir at law
OF Tamlin Avent they are the owners OF
the lands in controversy (section Is, T. III.
unless the tax title under which appellant
claims is valid or unless valid ouistand-
ing tax title is shown. The history of the
tax titles adverse to the ownership OF COM
plainants is this: The lands were sold 10
State in 1867 for the taxes of 1866 in 1869
they were sold for levce taxes, and bought
in by the Board OF Levee Commissioners;
in 1875 they were sold by the State under
tho act OF March /, 1879, commonly
known as the abatement act, and again
bought by the State; in 1873 they
were sold by Gwin & Hemingway, COM
missioners OF the Chancery Court OF
| Kinds County, in the case OF Green
V. Gibbs, and the title thus conveyed is
now vested In appellant. Appellant first
acquired n claim TO the lands in Novem.
Der, 1873, and in 1883 she procured from
the Auditor OF Public Accounts release OF
the States title TO all the lands except the
northeast quarter Of the southwest quarter
and the northwest quarter OF the southeast
quarter by compliance with Section ga Of
the Code OF 1850, which is as follows
"When the owner or any person interested
in any lands held by the State by pur.
chase at n sale for taxes, shall produce a
tax receipt for the PAYMENT TO the collector
OF the taxes for which said land was sold,
before such sale, and shall pay to the col
lector Of taxes OF the county in which said
land is all taxes which have subsequently
accrued on said land and not been paid,
taking his receipt therefor in duplicate.
which such collector is hereby required
10 furnish him, and shall file with the
clerk OF the Board Of Supervisors Of such
county one OF said receipts, aud with the
Auditor OF Public Accounts the other Of
such receipts and also the receipt iirst
mentioned, the said Auditor shall release
10 such person the title OF the State 10 such
land, which release may be recorded with.
out acknowledgment, as in other cases Of
conveyance by tho Auditor"
Complainants attack the sale Of 1867 on
the ground that tile sale was not made at
the door Of the courthouse, and because
the land was not offered in the smallest
legal subdivisions but was sold as one en-.
tire tract This, II Is said, rendered the
title thus acquired void rs TO the owner,
but that II was eiiectual 10 prevent sub
segment sale for levee taxes, since thoreaf.
ter the lands were "held by the State
and exempt from such taxes.
Tho conclusion sought TO be reached by
complainants by this process OF reasoning
h arrived at by us on different reasons; lis
effect Is Of course the same. The conclu-
sion is reached by rs not upon the ground
that both tax titles were void, but because
one THAT held by the STATED was valid,
wherefore, the other that acquired by the
Leyee Board was invalid. We shall sec
by what course OF action the valid tax
title derived under the sale Of 1867 was
aiterward surrendered aud became inope.
ratiye.
by an act entitled Gan act TO provide
for the better security OF titles 10 lands
held and claimed under tax sale and tax
titles" approved February 10, 1850, Il was,
among other things, declared, THAT all
sales OF lands hereafter made for non.pay.
ment OF taxes, due under any law OF this
state, shall DO valid 10 all intents and pur.
poses-said lands subject 20 redemption as
provided by law-and that no such sale
shall be impeachcd or questioned in any
manner, or for any cause, saving fraud or
mistake In the assessment or sale OF the
same, OF upon the proof that the tax for
which the same were sold had been paid
prior 10 such sale. and no suit TO set aside
any title acquired under such sale, here
after TO be made, shall bc brought, unless
| within five years from the date OF the
sale" Act, section s.
The first question for consideration Is
whether under the operation OF this stat.
ute the title derived by the State under
the sale Of 1867 became secure from attack
by the lapse Of time, or whether the itali-
cized part Of the act was mere statute OF
Limitation which was repealed by the
adoption OF the Code OF ISL before the
period had expired.
In Neyin vs. Bailey, 90 Miss. 433, we
construed provision Of tile Code Of 1871.
similar In purport 10 the above, and de-
clarcd lie effect. That provision was, ~ Is
| this, In form statute OF limitations, but
In substance II was held 10 DO In many rc-
spccis much more than such a statute.
Tho title, scope and purpose Of the act Of
! 1850 (the italicized portion Of which was
| carried forward aud became part Of sec.
! ton |, 7Ogof the Coded 1871 adds strength
| 30 the conclusion reached In thecaso above
| cited. Tho act was 10 provide ''ior the
| better security OF tax titles" Il afforded a
| remedy by which the holder under tax
| title might call into court all persons
claiming OF having any interest In such
/ lands, which existed at the time the same
/ were sold for taxes" aud settle once for al
ways the validity Of his title. As 10 sales
/ thereafter To be made u added the assur-
ance that after the lapse Of five years no
! hostile Claim should be- asserted Whether
/ the purchaser ut tax sale or the iormcr
owner was In possession Of the land sold,
whether the land was occupied or vacant,
| the security Afforded by the act existed.
| The provision rs 10 future sales was in