The Greenville times., 1889-05-25
- srPgEME COTRT.


=, . ..,op the validity Of the act Of
nj goes far, almost to tinailty 1
toward settling all issues OF
- s.-.;on over titles to the Liqulda-
Isree lands. For this let al, ez-
4. sOriginal owner be thankful.
\ 7. arc indebted to Hon. ". o.
-, who returned from jackson
= Fs.sdsy last, for copy of this deei-
!, is Importance warrants publ
lion IN full;
- - chancellor did not err in re-
~. ~ ,he cross bill and permitting
sn,J 1s;usnts therein to proceed with
~ ! su original bill. ,,.
Psleher VS.. Wilkinson, 54 Miss,
: ,bere was no order of court re-
y, ..Isg the cross bill, while in the case
aa'I Sefore us the order of the chan
~ ~, expressly retained the cross bill
a' y J, original bill,s and directed pro-
J. = 10 he issued on it as such. The
sasllspt = entered her appearance, and
'rssiwered. thus waving the process
Treted TO issued.
I 'psroeeeding to the main questions
.,olyed. il Is sufficient to say, in refer
mes ~ 70 complainant's title, that as
ssi,s.at-law sir of Tamlin Agent, they are
A. ~, swpers of the land in controversy
Ssetiou = IS. I. IN, unless the tax title
Epder which appellant claims is valid,
!, r unless valid outstanding tax title
shown. The history of the tax titles
.lyerse to the ownership of complain
.uts is this; , >,
The lands were sold to the State III
tss7 for the taxes of 1866. In 1863
,bey were sold for leyee taxes and
soaght in by the board of Lcvee Com,
mI,sioucrs. In 1875, they were sold
Nv tbe State under the Act OF March
/ 1878 commonly known as the abate'
ment Act. and again bought by th'
State. In 1878, they were sold bl
f;win and Hemingway, Commissioner
of the chancery court of ilinds county
n the case of Green VS.. Gibbs, and thu
title thus conveyed is now vested II
sppellant
Appellant first acquired claim t
the lands in November, 1873, and II
1883 she procured from the Auditor Q
Public Accounts a release Of the State
title to all the lands except the n. 1
IA offs. w. Ia and the N. W. II o
SEA. by compliance with sectiol
y4 of the Code of 1880, which is a
follows:
aWhen the owner or any person Ill
terested in any lands held by the Stat
hy A purchase at a sale for taxes, shal
produce tax receipt for the payment
10 the collector, of the taxes for whic
said land was sold, before such sal'
and shall pay to the collector OF take
Of the county in which said land is, q
taxes which have subsequently accrue
on said land, and not been paid, takin
bis receipt therefor, in duplicate, whic
said collector is hereby required
furnish him, and shall file with I'll
clerk of the Board of Supervisors
such county one Of said receipts, an
with the Auditor of Public Accoun
The other of such receipts, and also I'll
receipt first mentioned, the said Aud
tor shall release to such person u
title of the State to such land, whic
release may be recorded without a
knowledgment, as in other eases
conyeyances by the Auditor
Complainants attack the sale OF IN
Oh the ground that tho sale was II
made at the door of the court hous
and because the land was not oiier'
in the smallest legal subdivisions, b
was sold as one entire tract This, it
said, rendered the title thus acquire
void as to the owner, but that 1T W
ehectual to prevent subsequent 81
for levec taxes, since thereafter 7
lands were "held by the State" a
exempt from such taxes.
The conclusion sought to be reach
by complainants, by this process
reasoning, is arrived at by us on diff
ent reasons. Its effect is, of cour
the same.
The conclusion is reached by us, |
upon the ground that both tax tit
were void, but because one that HI
by the State) was valid, wherefore,
other (that acquired by the Ley
Board) was invalid. We shall see
what course of action the valid
title derived under the sale OF 10
was afterwards surrendered and
came imperative.
BY an act entitled "An act to ?
vide for the better security oil Titles
lands held and claimed under tax
and tax titles,n approved Fob'y II
1860, it was among other things
clared, aThat all sales Of lands h'
after made for non-payment OF ta
due under any law of this State, Q
be valid to all intents and purpose
said lands subject to redemption
provided by law-and that no 5
sale shall be impeached or questlo
in any manner, or for any cause, say
fraud or mistake in the assessment
sale of the same, or upon tue p
that the tax for which the same v
sold had been paid prior to such
AND NO SUIT TO SET ASIDE ANY II
ACQUIRED UNDER SUCH SALE, HI
AFTER TO BE MADE, SHALL
BROUGHT, UNLESS WITHIN FIVE YE
FROM THE DATE OF THE SALE"
Sec. 8.
The first question for considera
is whether under the operation OF
statute, the title derived by the
under the sale of 1867 became Sc
from attack by the lapse OF tim
whether the italicized part OF tn
was mere statute of limitations "
was repealed by the adoption o.
Code Of 1871 before the period
expired. !.
In Nevin VS.. Bailey, 62 Miss. 40
construed provision of the COO
1871. similar in purport to the q
and declared its effect. That prov
was. as is this, in form statute o.
itations, but in substance It was
to be in many respects much more
such a statute. The title, scope
purpose of the act of 1850 (the itall
portion of which was carried Tor
and became part of Sec. 10y Q