Court Opinion

ID: 7814671
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-09-07 17:31:23.623099+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:30:34.187727
License: Public Domain

George Rose Smith, J., dissenting. This is an instance of a hard case making bad law. Grayson acquired title to Arrington’s property under a writ of execution issued upon a relatively small judgment for costs. It is natural enough to sympathize with Arrington, even though he was at fault in not keeping himself informed about the progress of litigation to which he was a party. But that sympathy ought not to be carried to the extent of holding that the solemn judgment of a court of superior jurisdiction is a mere nullity, to be disregarded on collateral attack. It is true, of course, that the legislature could have provided that the chancery court should be wholly without power to render a judgment for costs in a tax conformation suit. But in my opinion that result should depend upon far more emphatic language than that used in the statute upon which today’s decision rests. The reason for the enactment of this statute is easily understood. When a state agency is directed to institute a suit some provision is ordinarily made for the payment of the court costs that must necessarily be incurred. In some instances the statute directs that the State shall not be required to pay costs as a condition to bringing suit; in other instances the legislature designates a fund from which the costs may be paid. The latter procedure has been followed in statutes directing the institution of proceedings to confirm the State’s title to tax-forfeited land. It was provided by Act 119 of 1935, § 10, that the court costs should be paid from amounts received for the redemption or sale of such forfeited property. The present statute, enacted in 1943, authorizes the payment of court costs from amounts received by the State for the confirmation of title to lands certified for nonpayment of taxes. Ark. Stats. 1947, § 84-1327. As far as I can see, the purpose of the statute is to point out the fund from which the costs may be paid. There is nothing to indicate that the legislature meant to divest the chancery court of its routine authority to tax the costs according to the merits of the case. It may be true that, in view of the statute, the court committed an error that might have been corrected upon appeal. But I am altogether unwilling to say that the statute was intended to have the drastic effect of rendering the court’s decree a mere nullity.