The Greenville times., 1889-05-25

recently held Intellectual as against him 7
whose taxes had been paid. Metcalfe
ys. Perry, Miss ltprobably would be ]
equally iaapplicable to case in which
compliance with the constitutional re-
as to assessment was not ,
shown. As to the lands bought by the
State the power, of course, existed to
repeal the law, since such repeal would
not be the impairment of the contract
of sale. If this statute had been pure
statute of limitations, the next inquiry
presented might be differently an
swered. That inquiry is whether II
was repealed by the Code of 1871 IN
which the subject of limitations of
actions was revised and eoditied!
The substance of the first six sections
of the act of 1860 is embodied in sec
ton 1883 of the Code, and that part Of
section 8 of said act now under eonsid-
Grafton became part of section l7O9.
The argument has been made that sec
ton 1909 of the Code refers to sales
thereafter to be made under the pro-
visions of the chapter of which 1t is
part, aud that as to the sales made un-
der the act of 1860, neither the Code |
nor the act applies; the Code because |
it was prospective in its operations and
the act because it has been repealed.
But as we have said, the act confers a
right upon the purchaser at tax sales.
1t is not expressly repealed, and by
section Is of the Code it is declared
that even where there is a repeal by the
Code of former laws, 1t "shall not
affect any act done, or any cause oi
action, or any right accruing or accrued
previous to the time when such repeal
shall take place.
While, therefore, the former owners
of the land might have attacked the
title secured by the State under the
sale of 1867. within five years from the
date of such sale, the lapse Of that
period of time made such title valid
against attack based upon any mere
ilregularity in the proceedings Of sale.
In the Mayer VS.. PEBBLES, So Miss. our
attention was not called to the act now
under consideration, and the validity
of the title of the Levee Board spring
inc from the lapse of time was not con-
sidered. A different conclusion would
probably have been reached If the
statute now under review had been
appealed to. Whether the States title
was unimpeachable at the time OF the
| sale to the Levee Board is immaterial
since il afterwards became SO prior to
the enactment of the act of March list,
1875.
By that act the State in effect de-
clared that 1t would abandon all claim
under pre-exlsting tax sales, whether
made to itself or to one of the levee
, boards. on condition that the owners
Of or Others interested in, the forfeited
land, would pay the State, county and
levee taxes for the year 1874, and in
!, default of such payment scheme was
5 provided for resale of all the delin.
1 auent lands. In Green v. Gibbs and
Bunch v. Wollerstein, 50 Miss, 1t is de
2 cided that this act in so far as 1t Gu
deavored to abate the taxes due th'
0 leyec board on land held by 1t was un
Q constitutional as impairing the right
f of the creditors of such board. Bu
4 this was upon the ground that tn
s leyee board was the owner OF the land
o AS trustee for such creditors. In tn
/ case before us the State and not tn
G leyee board was then the owner OF tn
h lands now In controversy, and becaus
) IL was might abate as 1t saw fit all de
If linqucnt taxes
VIC can perceive no ground for hole
n ing invalid the sale to the State unae
)t the abatement act other than that di'
c, closed by the releases executed to ~
ID pellant by the auditor, aud they cove
ut only portion of the lands. ltappeal
is from these releases that appellant
d. 1888 exhibited to the auditor of publ
as accounts the evidence required by So
lie ton 574 of the Code that the taxes ie
he which the lands were sold had bee
I'd paid before the day of sale. But
1883 when these releases were MAD
I'd the State had abandoned her claim q
of rived from the sale of 1867, and CLAIM
r. ed new and Independent title und'
50. the act of March |, 1875. Cochran
Baker, so Miss.
ot The releases are evidence OF the ia
les that the taxes for the year 1874 nj
Id been paid before tho sale under tn
he act. for il was the duty of the audit'
ee to receive evidence of that fact. ID
by he had no right to require evidence
AK the payment of the taxes for the yc
81, 1866, since they had been abatcd al
be- released by the act of 1870
Payment of these taxes proven
ro- have been made operated not only
to prevent sale of tho lands for sll
ale taxes. but also TO release to the form
til. owner the title acquired under the ST
de- of 1867.
re- Section 574 of the Code speaks Of
res, "releasen of the States title III
,all state of case therein named, but
S. evidence required under that secti'
as is that the taxes had been paid Deft
nch the sale, in which case the State wol
ned have no title to pass by the relea
ing and no title could of course pass the
or BY. 1t is probable that appellan,.
.oof tended to concentrate in herself D, .
ere the title of the levee board and u
,ale. derived by the State under the sale
TIE 1878. but the evidence she cxhiDl'
IRE to the auditor proved that the st
BE acquired no title by that sale, beca
AIRS the taxes had been paid, and as
Act have seen the levee board acqul
none by its proceeding because
ton State then had title to the land.
this sole valid tax title to the lands
tate scribed in these releases, on the IL II
rure shown. was that derived by the D
q or in 1861 and that il surrendered in s
, act sideration of the payment OF the Ia
the Rut as to 80 acres of the land
had named in the releases, it docs not
near that the State has released
J. we title acquired by tho sale under .ne
Z of of March 1st, 1875; there IS no
,ove Jence that the taxes on these had
jsion mid. and there Is no other defect
linn eested as to that sale
held For the error In affording compl