Court Opinion

ID: 9864389
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 12:57:31.415117+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:11:33.221938
License: Public Domain

On' Rehearing An amicus curiae suggests that § 5 of act 282 of the Acts of 1935 has repealed the requirement that the county clerk attach a certificate to the delinquent list of lands as recorded by him, showing in what newspaper the delinquent list was published and the dates of publication. It is conceded by him that numerous tax sales were declared invalid through the failure to comply with this requirement and it is conceded also that § 5 of act 16 of the Special Session of 1933 (page 61) renewed and •imposed this requirement, but the suggestion is that this section was repealed by § 5 of act 282. The argument is that this § 5 of act 282 purports to re-enact and to amend § 5 of the 1933 act and does so by omitting the last paragraph of § 5 of the Act of 1933, which reads as follows: “The list of delinquent lands recorded as provided in § 5 hereof shall be attached thereto, by the county clerk, a certificate at the foot of said record, stating in what newspaper said .notice of delinquent land sale was published and the dates of publication, and such record, so certified, shall be evidence of the facts in said list and certificate contained. ’ ’ We would hesitate to so hold unless act 282 was incapable of any other construction. This is true because if the requirement that the certificate be attached to the record has been repealed, then the requirement that the list of delinquent lands be authenticated by the signature of the clerk has also been repealed, as both requirements are found in this last paragraph of § 5 of the 1933 special act. Certainly, the General Assembly did not intend that no authenticated record should be made of land returned delinquent for the nonpayment of the taxes thereon. Section 5 of act 282, which amends § 5 of act 16 of 1933, contains no requirements as to the certification and authentication of the list of delinquent lands, • except that found in the last paragraph thereof, but § 4 of act 170 of the Acts of 1935 requires the county clerk to record in his office the list of land returned delinquent by the county collector and publication of the notice of sale of land so returned delinquent is provided for by § 3 of act 170. Neither act 170 nor act 282 refers expressly or by implication to the last paragraph of § 5 of the. 1933 act above copied. It was contended in Benham v. Davis, 196 Ark. 740, 119 S. W. 2d 743, that act 16 of 1933 was unconstitutional, but we held against that contention. It was recognized, however, that there was apparently a hiatus in the law, which was explained as follows: “As to the second contention, the last paragraph of § 6 of said act, which section amends § 10085 of Crawford & Moses’ Digest provides: ‘This list of delinquent lands recorded as provided in § 5 hereof shall be .attached thereto, by the county clerk, a certificate at the foot of said record, stating in what newspaper said notice of delinquent land sale was published and the dates of publication, and such record, so certified, shall be evidence of the facts in said list and certificate contained.’ Appellant says that this statute is unintelligible, but, while it is somewhat involved, we think the meaning clear, and that is* that the clerk shall attach to the list of delinquent lands recorded, as provided in § 5, a certificate at the foot of the record, stating in what newspaper said notice of delinquent land sale was published and the dates of publication, and that such record so certified shall be received in evidence of the facts therein contained.” See, also, Anthony v. The Western & Southern Life Insurance Company, 198 Ark. 445, 128 S. W. 2d 1014; Thomas v. Branch, Sheriff, 202 Ark. 338, 150 S. W. 2d 738, and Gottfried v. Johnson, 204 Ark. 552, 163 S. W. 2d 162. In the case of Hirsch and Schuman v. Dabbs and Mivelaz, 197 Ark. 756, 126 S. W. 2d 116, the second headnote reads as follows: “The Legislature did not, in amending, §§ 10082, 10084 and 10085, C. & M. Dig., by act 250 of 1933, and act 16 of the Special Session of 1933, intend to dispense with the requirement that a permanent record be kept of lands returned delinquent, nor the requirement that the record be made prior to the sale.” It stands adjudged, therefore, that the delinquent list of lands must, be recorded and that the clerk’s certificate must be appended thereto, unless these requirements have been abolished by act 282. Does this act express any such intent? The case of Schuman v. Metropolitan Trust Company, 199 Ark. 283, 134 S. W. 2d 579, announced in -the first headnote the rule to be followed in answering that question, which reads as follows: “In construing statutes, it is the duty of the court to ascertain the intention of the Legislature, and this intention is arrived at by what the Legislature said; and in getting at the meaning from what they have said, it is proper to take into consideration not only the entire act in question, but other statutes on the subject.” The opinion in the case of Thomas v. Branch, Sheriff, 202 Ark. 338, 150 S. W. 2d 738, is helpful in this connection. Now § 5 of special act 16 made sufficient a notice of the sale of delinquent lands, which merely refers to the delinquent list of lands on file in the office of the county clerk, without requiring the delinquent lands to be otherwise described. Under § 5 of this act 16, it was provided that: “There shall be published once weekly between the first Monday in November and the third Monday in November, in each year, . . . , a notice to the effect that the delinquent lands, tracts, lots or parts of lots so entered in said delinquent land book will be sold, . . .” Section 5 of act 282 amends the § 5 of act 16 to read as follows: “Section 6. There shall be published once weekly between the fifteenth day of October and the first Monday in November, in each year, in any county publication qualified by law, a notice to the effect that the delinquent lands, tracts, lots or parts of lots so entered in said delinquent land book will be sold, etc. . . .” This amended section from which we have just quoted, did not require a description of the delinquent lands to be contained in the notice of sale, neither did it require the clerk to record the list of delinquent lands and attach thereto the certificate required by the last paragraph of § 5 of the act No. 16. This act 282 was approved March 28, 1935. There was passed at the same 1935 session of the General Assembly another act, which is No. 170' and approved March 21, 1935, which sets out the form of notice of the sale of delinquent lands,, and § 4 of this act 170 requires’the county clerk to record the list of delinquent lands as returned- by the collector. These acts 170 and 282 of 1935 left the law in a confused state as to whether the delinquent land should be separately described in the notice of sale or whether the notice of sale would be sufficient if reference only was made to the -list of delinquent lands on file in the office of the clerk of the county court, as was provided in § 5 of special act 16. It was pointed out in the opinion in the Thomas case, supra, that these -acts 170 and 282 were in conflict, both as to the time and manner of publishing the delinquent “list and as to-the duties of the tax collectors in relation thereto. It was held that although § 5 of act 282 provided that “. . . a notice to the effect that the delinquent lands, tracts, lots or parts of lots so entered in said delinquent land book will be sold, . . .” , this provision, did not repeal the requirements of act 170, a prior act, that, the notice of sale should describe the separate tracts of land to be sold and by parity of reasoning, we reach the conclusion that the General Assembly did not intend to abolish the duties of the county clerk to record the delinquent list, and his duty in this behalf required him to append at the bottom of the list a certificate “ stating in what newspaper said notice of delinquent land sale was published and the dates of publication, We conclude, therefore, that the law still requires the county clerk to record the delinquent list and to attach- thereto a certificate stating in what newspaper the notice was published, and as that requirement was not complied with in the instant case, we reaffirm the holding that the tax sale was invalid.