Case Name: Yazoo & Mississippi Valley Railroad Co. v. J. W. McLarty
Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Mississippi
Decision Date: 1894-03
Citations: 71 Miss. 755
Docket Number: 
Parties: Yazoo & Mississippi Valley Railroad Co. v. J. W. McLarty.
Judges: 
Reporter: Mississippi Reports
Volume: 71
Pages: 755–757

Head Matter:
Yazoo & Mississippi Valley Railroad Co. v. J. W. McLarty.
Tax-title. List of lands sold to state. Evidence of title.
Tn a suit by a vendee of the state to confirm a tax-title, the validity of which is denied by the answer, if the collector’s list o£ lands sold to the state is not produced, complainant must fail. Weathersby v. Thoma, 57 Miss., 290.
From the chancery court of Grenada county.
Hon. B. T. Kimbrough, Chancellor.
Bill by appellant against appellee to remove clouds and confirm a tax-title to certain lands in Grenada county. Complainant claimed through a tax-sale made to the state in 1876. The answer of defendant traversed the material allegations of the bill, denied complainant’s right to relief, and set up adverse possession of ten years. The record contains no note of evidence, but, on final hearing, it appears that the following was introduced:
1. A list of lands sold to the state March 13, 1876, made by the auditor, under an act entitled “An act to systematize the records of state tax lands,” etc., approved March 5,1880. This list includes the land in controversy.
2. Two deeds from the state to one Mann, and a deed from Mann to complainant, embracing said land.
8. Minutes of board of supervisors of Grenada county, making levy for 1875.
4. Extract from assessment-roll of 1875, showing assessment of this land.
This was all the evidence. The court decreed that complainant was not entitled to confirmation, but referred the cause to a master to state an account of the taxes paid on the land, in order that complainant might enforce a lien for the same. From this decree, complainant prayed and obtained an appeal to settle the principles of the ease.
Mayes & Harris, for appellant.
True, the tax-collector’s list of lands sold to the state was not introduced, but, as a substitute for it, the auditor’s list, made under the act of 1880, was read in evidence. The question as to the sufficiency of this list is, we believe, a new one. We contend that it is sufficient, and satisfies the law.
But, if this list was not proper, because secondary evidence, defendant should have objected to its introduction. Having failed to do this, it is too late to make objection to the evidence in this court.
I. T. Blount, for appellee.
Complainant failed to show title, and was properly denied relief. As in ejectment, it was necessary to'show title. No deed from the collector nor any list of lands sold to the state was introduced. It does not appear that the land was ever sold for taxes. The only error committed was in not dismissing the bill.

Opinion:
Cooper, J.,
delivered the opinion of the court.
There is an absence of anv evidence of title in complain ant. The list of lands sold to the state for taxes was the foundation of the title it claims to hold, and was essential to be introduced or proved. Clymer v. Cameron, 55 Miss., 593 ; Weathersby v. Thoma, 57 Ib., 296.
Decree affirmed.