Document: 414 U.S. 100 94 S.Ct. 313 38 L.Ed.2d 298 Mary Louise Green PASCHALL et al., Appellants,v.CHRISTIE-STEWART, INC., al. No. 72—922. Argued Oct. 16, 1973. Decided Nov. 19, Rehearing Denied Jan. 7, 1974. See 1138, 884. William J. Legg, Oklahoma City, Okl., for appellants. Joe S. Rolston, Ill, appellees. PER CURIAM. 1 In this case we noted probable jurisdiction, 411 915, 93 1543, 36 306 (1973), in order to consider whether the published notice provisions of then-applicable tax-sale statutes, Okla.Stat., Tit. 68, §§ 382 and 432b (1951), comported with due process law guaranteed by Fourteenth Amendment.1 Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 306, 70 652, L.Ed. 865 (1950). This was only issue addressed appellate courts Oklahoma2 parties Jurisdictional Statement papers responsive thereto filed Court. 2 After oral argument upon our review record, it now appears that there might have been an independent and, possibly, unchallenged ground judgment state trial court, viz., running period limitation adverse claims.3 If should prove be case, any decision Court would advisory beyond jurisdiction. Murdock City Memphis, 87 590, 636, 20 Wall. 22 429, 444 (1875). 3 The Supreme is therefore vacated remanded court appellants preserved right challenge court's determination State's statute limitations a bar their mineral rights claim, if so, whether, under law, independently bars appellants' irrespective constitutional adequacy 432b.4 Cf. Walker Hoffman, 405 P.2d 57 (Okl.1965). 4 It so ordered. 5 Judgment remanded. 6 Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, whom STEWART concurs, dissenting. 7 Appellants claim title interests here controversy through deeds recording severed on books Seminole County Clerk 1926 1930. 1952 owner separate surface interest failed pay ad valorem taxes county satisfied its tax selling entire fee appellees after 'notice' newspaper publication. taxsale statutes did not require given owners way personal service, mailing, or posting, no such attempted. action quiet contended that, as record rights, they were never constitutionally sufficient delinquency proceedings them invalid. 8 finding valid attack deed barred limitations, quieted Appeals reversed but itself Court, each addressing expressly claim. today remands determine adequately ruling may serve assertion 9 first proper preservation hurdle facing thus must necessarily found, sale infirm, also time barred. affirmed '(t)he question statutory procedure . complies law.' 502 1265, 1266 (1972) (emphasis added). Whether raised objecting judgment, do know. What know rejecting Either because properly before necessary, reached. 10 faces quieting federal As majority notes, When adjudication basis which rests, since rest grounds regardless outcome review. But us one reversal below rejection rests determination, dispositive correctness advisory. I face at point. year 1952. original took place November 1953 resale May 1956. 383 432 (1951). cited (§§ 382, 383, 432, 432b) repealed Okla.Sess.Laws 1965, c. 501, § 3, replaced corresponding present Ad Valorem Tax Code, namely, Okla.Stat.Ann., 24312, 24313, 24329, 24331 (1966). 1265 (1972). earlier opinion Appeals, Division 2, reported; reproduced Statement, App. A, p. vii. read part follows: '(2) Further Finds, Orders, Adjudges Decrees from date said deed, June 6, 1956 Grantees therein, Cross-Petitioners, R. W. Garrett H. Vaughn, open, continuous, visible, notorious, exclusive hostile possession lands premises, receiving all rents, profits income therefrom, contesting substituted party defendants, are further forever precluded seeking assert invalidity provided 12 O.S.1961, Sec. 93(3) (6).' B, xvii. 12, (Supp.1973—1974), reads: 93. Limitation real actions.—'Actions recovery property, can brought within periods hereinafter prescribed, cause shall accrued, other thereafter: '(3) An property sold taxes, five (5) years provided, nothing herein construed reviving heretofore nor divesting acquired prior effective hereof. '(6) Numbered paragraphs 1, fully operative precedent proceeding based void voidable whole part, reason, jurisdictional otherwise; paragraph applied causes until expiration (1) date.' alleged lack preclude land has presented below. Schroeder New York, 371 208, 213—214, 83 279, 282, 283, 255, 259, 260 (1962). We intimate view issue.

Category: 8