Court Opinion

ID: 9864371
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 12:54:56.118458+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:10:49.738671
License: Public Domain

Smith, J. (on rehearing). Appellee cites, in support of his petition for rehearing, cases which, like Burcham v. Terry, 55 Ark. 398, 18 S. W. 458, 29 Am. Ct. Rep. 42, discuss the effect of sales made pursuant to decrees rendered under the authority of Act 39 of the Acts of 1881, pages 63 et seq., commonly known as the Overdue Tax Act. It is insisted that we have not followed the principle announced in those cases, and that the instant case impairs their authority. We have no such intention, and we think the original opinion in this ease does not accomplish that result. In the case of Burcham v. Terry, supra, Judge Hughes, speaking for the court, said: “The chancery court that rendered the decree under which they-were sold to the state had jurisdiction of the subject matter of the suit, which was a proceeding in rem. That illegal taxes had been assessed against the lands, and that they had been assessed for taxation for years when they were not liable for taxes, were matters of defense which might have been-shown in the overdue tax suit, but they cannot be shown in a collateral suit These matters might have been litigated in the overdue tax suit, and the decree in ihat suit is conclusive here as to all matters that could have been litigated in that suit except the question of jurisdiction. Mayo v. Ah Loy, 32 Cal., 477, 91 Am. Dec. 595. This case falls within the principle decided in McCarter v. Neil, 50 Ark. 188, 6 S. W. 731, and Williamson v. Mimms, 49 Ark. 336, 5 S. W. 320. 1 Black on Judgments, § 245.” An examination of this Overdue Tax Act will disclose that it did not attempt to give finality to the decrees rendered pursuant to its provisions at the time of their rendition, nor did it attempt to give finality to sales which such decrees ordered, even after they had been made and confirmed. .Section 11 of this Overdue Tax Act provides that “The owner of any lands thus sold may redeem from the purchaser at any time within the period fixed by law for the redemption of lands sold for iaxes, on the payment of the sums required to be paid by law in making redemption in other eases, and on payment of the costs of the proceedings had under this act, in so far as they may have been adjudged against the lands sought to be redeemed.” The two years thus allowed for redemption in the Overdue Tax Act became in effect and of the nature of a statute of limitation, making the sales impervious to attack after the expiration of the two years allowed for redemption, upon any ground, save only the jurisdiction of the court ordering and confirming such sales. The original opinion in this case pointed out, however, that Act 139 of the Acts of 1935 was not to be construed as enacting a statute of limitation requiring confirmation decrees rendered pursuant to its provisions to be attacked within one year after the date of their rendition, and not later. Act 119 did not allow any and all persons a year, or any other time, within which to redeem after the rendition of the confirmation decree. As was said in the original opinion, “It appears to be the purpose and effect of the act (119) to give finality and conclusive effect to the decree of confirmation, not one year after the date of its rendition, but upon its rendition, ’ ’ although it was provided that certain owners, who could make the showing that they had no knowledge of the pendency of the suit and who had a meritorious defense to the complaint upon which the decree was rendered, were allowed one year within which to make that showing. It was not, therefore, a statute of limitation, and did not cure tax sales where the power to make them was lacking. Act 119 of the Acts of 1935 differs from the Overdue Tax Act in this very material respect. The original opinion here recognized the power of the General Assembly to enact such a statute of limitation. Had it done so,' decrees rendered pursuant to its provisions would, like decrees rendered under the Overdue Tax Act, have been impervious to any attack, save only that the court was without jurisdiction to render the decree. The case of Burcham v. Terry and other cases called to our attention would, in that event, have application, but, for the reasons herein stated, they do not apply.