From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bounds v. Brown

Supreme Court of Mississippi, Division A
Apr 28, 1947
29 So. 2d 657 (Miss. 1947)

Opinion

No. 36358.

March 17, 1947. Suggestion of Error Overruled April 28, 1947.

1. TAXATION.

Evidence in action to quiet tax title established that money paid by assignee of purchaser at tax sale to chancery clerk one day after expiration of two year redemption period was paid as a consideration for assignment from tax purchaser to complainant, and not for redemption of land which would inure to benefit of former owners.

2. APPEAL AND ERROR.

The Supreme Court will not disturb findings of chancellor on conflicting testimony.

APPEAL from the chancery court of Kemper county. HON. T.P. GUYTON, Chancellor.

J.H. Daws, of DeKalb, and Creekmore Creekmore, of Jackson, for appellants.

The lands were redeemed from the sale for 1939 taxes.

Crabb v. Comer, 190 Miss. 289, 296, 200 So. 133; Darrington v. Rose, 128 Miss. 16, 25, 90 So. 632; McLain v. Meletio, 166 Miss. 1, 147 So. 878; Beauchamp v. McLauchlin, 200 Miss. 83, 25 So.2d 771; Jamison v. Thompson, 65 Miss. 516, 5 So. 107; State Highway Commission v. Powell et ux., 184 Miss. 266, 185 So. 589; Jackson v. Day, 193 Miss. 379, 9 So.2d 789; Rimer v. Dugan, 39 Miss. 477; Clark v. Lopez, 75 Miss. 932, 23 So. 648; Alexander v. Meek, 132 Miss. 298, 96 So. 101; Lauderdale v. Hallock, 7 Smedes M. (15 Miss.) 622, 629; Ross v. Wilson, 7 Smedes M. (15 Miss.) 753; Sawyer v. Adams, 8 Va. 172; Carter v. Champion, 8 Conn. 549; Code of 1942, Sec. 9948; 12 R.C.L. 232, 396.

The complainant, J.C. Warren, who was then the chancery clerk, did not perform the duty imposed upon him by law in regard to the matter of issuing the statutory notice to the owners of the land sold for taxes. This Court will not permit him to profit by his own wrong, and he is now estopped to say that the sale was not void. His own wrongful act prevents confirmation of those tax titles insofar as he claims any interest therein.

Pace v. Wedgeworth, 198 Miss. 1, 20 So.2d 842; Everett v. Williamson, 163 Miss. 848, 143 So. 690; Crabb v. Comer, supra.

The absence of the seal from the tax deed and the failure to deliver the same render same void.

Hatchett v. Thompson, 174 Miss. 502, 165 So. 110; Johnson v. Langston, 189 Miss. 649, 198 So. 321; Lynch v. Lynch, 121 Miss. 752, 83 So. 807; Hall v. Waddill, 78 Miss. 16, 28 So. 831; Seward v. Dogan, 198 Miss. 419, 21 So.2d 292; Clanton v. Callender, 198 Miss. 614, 22 So.2d 487; Slush v. Patterson, 201 Miss. 113, 28 So.2d 738; Thibodeaux v. Havens, 116 Miss. 476, 77 So. 313; Jones County Land Co. v. Fox, 120 Miss. 798, 83 So. 241; Salter v. Polk, 172 Miss. 263, 159 So. 855; Campbell v. Wilson, 194 Miss. 746, 13 So.2d 624; Code of 1942, Secs. 831, 9958.

L.L. Martin, of Macon, J.T. McCully, of DeKalb, and W.E. Morse, of Jackson, for appellees.

There was no fraud perpetrated.

Griffith's Mississippi Chancery Practice, p. 176.

There was no alteration of the instruments so as to constitute fraud.

Shows v. State, 103 Miss. 640, 64 So. 726; Scott v. Perry, 140 Miss. 452, 106 So. 12.

There was no redemption of the property from taxes, that is, from the sale of 1940 for 1939 taxes.

It was not necessary that notice of tax sale be given to all the Bounds.

Code of 1942, Sec. 9941.

The record shows that there was a delivery of the tax deed.

The tax sale is valid.

Seward v. Dogan, 198 Miss. 419, 21 So.2d 292; Clanton v. Callender, 198 Miss. 614, 22 So.2d 487; Code of 1942, Secs. 9935, 9958.

Argued orally by Rufus Creekmore and J.H. Daws, for appellants, and by W.E. Morse, for appellees.


The appellees sued to have their tax title to certain lands confirmed and quieted as against the appellant, J.R. Bounds, and "all other persons having or claiming any interest" therein, and which said lands were assessed to "J.R. Bounds' heirs" when sold to D. Seward on September 16, 1940, for delinquent taxes for the year 1939.

On August 18, 1942, Seward assigned, transferred and conveyed to the appellee, M.D. Brown, whatever right and interest he had in the land by virtue of said tax sale and by virtue of one made to him in 1941 for the 1940 taxes, at and for an agreed total consideration of $162, to be paid by Brown to the Chancery Clerk for Seward when the tax title should mature and the deeds were ready to be executed, and which deeds were therein authorized to be delivered to Brown by the Clerk when the tax title should mature and when the money was paid.

The Chancery Clerk testified that this money was not paid to him until after September 16, 1942, that is to say until on September 17, 1942, when the tax deeds were executed and recorded in favor of Seward, who later executed a quit claim deed to Brown.

It is contended by the appellant that the above mentioned transaction amounted to a redemption of the land, and as such inured to the benefit of the former owner or owners. We do not think so. Even though the clerk referred to the $162 as the "redemption money" in his testimony, it is undisputed that it was not paid to him by Brown until the next day after the two years for redemption had expired, following the 1940 sale. And it clearly appears that it was paid as a consideration for the assignment, transfer and conveyance from the tax purchaser to Brown of his right and interest in the land if it should remain unredeemed until the tax title should mature.

The other assignments of error involve the question of whether or not certain changes made by the clerk on the records to cause the recordation of certain instruments to conform to the description in the originals and to the list of lands sold for taxes were fraudulent alterations, and as to when they were made, and whether or not the court should have allowed certain exhibits to the bill to be amended, etc.; and also whether the court was in error in holding that the appellant had not been misled by statements of Brown into believing that the land had been redeemed from the tax sales in due time. But all of these issues were decided by the Chancellor on conflicting testimony, and under the rule we are not justified in disturbing his finding in regard thereto.

Therefore, the decree confirming and quieting the title of appellees to the land as to the named defendant, J.R. Bounds, and "all persons having or claiming any interest" therein, and in dismissing the cross-bill, must be affirmed.

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Bounds v. Brown

Supreme Court of Mississippi, Division A
Apr 28, 1947
29 So. 2d 657 (Miss. 1947)
Case details for

Bounds v. Brown

Case Details

Full title:BOUNDS et al. v. BROWN et al

Court:Supreme Court of Mississippi, Division A

Date published: Apr 28, 1947

Citations

29 So. 2d 657 (Miss. 1947)
29 So. 2d 657

Citing Cases

Thornton v. La.-Miss. Pipeline Const. Co.

, 53 So.2d 48; Board of Supervisors v. McCormick, 207 Miss. 216, 42 So.2d 177; Nelson v. State, ex rel.…

State ex rel. Corley v. Hines

The decision of the chancellor will not be disturbed by the Supreme Court on appeal unless manifestly…