The Greenville times., 1889-12-07
GREENVILLE TINES
Apo,hsr Llquidaung leree Tax Title
Decision.

lAut NuHii ifAhff sAf
From the Chancery Court Of Eisenhower
County Hon. ". r. Triga Chan 4
eeIIor. Messrs. Calhoun & Green,
and Chapman 4 Paxton, for The ap-
pellant: Messrs W. PA }. H. ia,-
rIs Nueent < Neville, and Frank
Johnston, for the appellee.
I'm wednesday. May n, 1870, the
land IN dispute vas sold for leyee Tax,
81 OF 1867. 1865, aud 1869, ana
was conveyed to the LeYee boafa
a provided by law in such cases. The
suit Of Joshua Green vs.. Hemingway
et al. Liquidatlng Leyee Commission
ers who held the title OF the Levee
Board. whatever it was, resulted N
decree 10 sell the land, and in 1881,
these Commissioners sold and convey
ed II TO Gordon, who soon conveyed
Il To Eyers. who afterwards conveyed
II by warranty deed to frentiss, VINO
conveyed. In like manner, to Mrs.
Prentiss, who conveyed to the com
plaluant. On the 9Th Of March, 1883,
The land was sold to the State for tax
Is. In 1884 there was passed AN
Act for the benefit Of purchasers OF
Ieyee Lands sold under the decree oil
the Chancery Court Of lllnds County,
First District, In the case Of Joshua
Green, and others vs. Hemingway ana
Gibbs. Auditor and Treasurer, aud ex-
ofilcio Liqnidating Ieyee Commission
ers.s This Act directed n conveyance
of the States title, BY quit claim, to
any purchaser ofsaid lands ON appllea-
tion. etc. Evcrs, who, before the Act,
had conveyed the land as stated, ap-
plied aud obtained deed from the
Auditor, under the Act Of 1881. In
1883, there was passed "An act TO quiet
and settle the title TO certain lands III
the Yazoo Delta, which were sold by
tho Commissioners of the Chancery
Court for the First District of Kinds
county, In the case Of Joshua Green
and others against Hemingway and
Gibbs. Treasurer and Auditor, and OK
ofllcIo Iiquidating Ieyce Commission
ers:, and under that Act Prentlss, who
had before conveyed. applied for and
obtained deed of quit claim of the
States title TO the land. Complainant
exhibited this bill setting forth the
above facts. and that Paxton had re.
Gently entered upon the land aud
built n cabin, and asserts title, which
tho bill prays TO have cancelled as q
cloud on complalnnnts title. The bill
was dcmurrcd TO, and defendant claim'
that the bill shows void sale on May
1i,ls70, because II was for the taxe'
of three years. and was on the wronl
day, not being the time prescribed BY
law for Il. The title claimed TO hay'
been got from the State by conveyance
10 Evers, under the Act of 1881, an'
to PrcntIss, under the Act Of 1888, i
assailcd as bong ofno value. for th'
reason that Eycrs was not a purchase
within the meaning Of the Act, as h'
had sold the land before the Act wa
passed, and that rrcntiss, having SOLE
before the Act Of 1883, was not cntltle,
wi, claim by tho AgAhgrunder
s'aderit was further insisted, that these
. cts were not intended as the source
of All independent title, and that the
purchase under them amounted only
to redemption of the land for the real
owner, who was Paxton, II was claim
ed. IL was also insisted that as the
complainant had full remedy at law,
and Paxton was In actual possession,
tho suit was improperly brought in
Chanccry. The demurrer was over
ruled, and the defendant appealed.
By Campbell, j.;
Granting the invalidity Of the sale
of the land for taxes ON the lth OF
May, 1870, as claimed by the appellant,
and that no title passed to the purchaser
under tho decree In Green W.. Hem
ingway, ct al, II Is nevertheless, true,
that by the conveyance under the de-
cree the land became the subject Of a
claim Of individual ownership, ceased
TO be claimed by the board of lcvee
commissioners, belonged eithcrt@ Pax.
ton or the purchaser under the decree,
and, therefore, was subject TO sale for
taxes on IL, due and not paid and as
II was duly sold and conveyed TO the
State Of Mississippi for taxes, ON the
9th of March, 1883, II was after the
period for redemption had expired
without redemption, subject to such
disposition as the State saw proper to
make Of il. II was then lost to The
former owner, held by the State by a
paramount title. which Il could vest
IN whomsoever II pleased, and was by
"An Act for the benefit Of purchasers"
Nc, under said decree, approved
March IA, 1884. directed TO be convey
cd to any purchaser under said decree,
who should apply for a conveyance of
the title of the State, within twelve
months after the passage of the Act.
And so determined was the State TO
vest its title TO any of said lands.
whensover acquired IN any pcrchas.
er of said leveo lands, under said de-
cree, that "An act to quiet aud set
tic the title' TO said lands, was ap-
proved March 2, 1888. directing a
conveyance of the States title to the
land held under said decree, to any
person who should apply for such con-
veyancc aud a decd by the Auditor.
In pursuance of this Act, was made
prima facie evidence of paramount
title.
A conveyance of the States title to
the land in controversy was made by
the Auditor Of Public Accounts 10
Evers, on the 26th of MAY 1884. ae-
cording TO the statute mentioned,
and on the 2lst of August, 1888. the
Auditor, pursuant to the Act approx
cd March 2, 1883, executed to George
Prentiss conveyance of the States
title to said land. The appellee claims
the land derivatively, by successive
convoyances, from Evers and Prem
tiss, and Evers derived title from
Gordon, who purchased from the
commissioners under the said decree,
Both Evors and Prentiss were within
the contemplation of the two Acts by
which the State sought TO perfect the
title under the decree aud sale men
toned. 1t is true that Evers had
conveyed the land before the passage
of the Act of March IA, 1884, but be
was purchaser of the lanus within
the meaning of the Act. The fact
that he mad sold them, did not make
him any less a purchaser than if he