Opinion ID: 1790504
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Validity of Appellants' Tax Title. Regardless of other defects in the tax sale, appellants are metat the threshold of their defensewith our holding in Sorkin v. Myers, 216 Ark. 908, 227 S.W.2d 958.

Text: The appellees' mineral interest in the Wingfield tract was listed on the tax books in the name of A. N. Stonecipher l/128th interest in the 40-acre tract, and shown as non-producing. The appellees' mineral interest in the Hicks tract was listed on the tax books in the name of Mary E. Stonecipher [1] 1/8th interest in the 40-acre tract, and shown as non-producing. The names of the said owners were arranged alphabetically on the tax books, and the mineral interests were not arranged by Section, Township, and Range, as is required for real estate. The same erroneous methodof arranging the names of the owners alphabetically, rather than arranging the land by Section, Township, and Rangeas described in Sorkin v. Myers, supra, exists in the case at bar. And our holding in Sorkin v. Myers is ruling here: the result being that the appellants' tax title is void. The mineral interests were never legally and validly assessed, so the purported sale was a nullity. Furthermore, since the minerals were (a) constructively severed from the soil by the mineral deeds, and (b) were non-producing, it follows that there was no possession of the minerals by anyone within the purview of Sec. 34-1419, Ark.Stats. See Skelly Oil Co. v. Johnson, 209 Ark. 1107, 194 S.W.2d 425.