From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Metcalfe v. Wise

Supreme Court of Mississippi, Division B
Jan 26, 1931
132 So. 102 (Miss. 1931)

Opinion

No. 29178.

January 26, 1931.

1. TAXATION.

Bill to establish tax title, not averring original title had passed out of government, held insufficient.

2. EQUITY.

Final decree, though on decree pro confesso, would have been reversible, if not void, where bill stated no cause of action.

3. TAXATION. Allegations of answer to bill to establish tax title held merely general traverse, and therefore no answer at all ( Code 1930, section 380).

Only denials or averments in answer to bill to establish tax title, touching tax deed or tax title, was denial that complainant was owner of land and denial that alleged sale for taxes was valid, and that alleged tax deed conferred any title upon complainants.

4. EQUITY.

If bill was sufficient, complainant after ordering case to issue docket on bill and answer, which, in effect, was no answer at all, would have been entitled to decree (Code 1930, section 380).

APPEAL from chancery court of Washington county. HON. J.L. WILLIAMS, Chancellor.

A.H. Turnage, of Greenville, for appellant.

Appellees' answer merely denied the allegations of appellant's bill. Since there are so many reasons why tax deeds may be fatally defective appellee should have given some notice on which one of them he intended to rely, and especially since he asked for affirmative relief.

The motion to require more specific answer should have been sustained.

Griffith on Mississippi Chancery Practice, chapter on answers.

It is the province of this court to interpret the meaning of these ordinances rather than their exact wording. Section 3813 of the Code of 1892 was amended by chapter 199 of the Laws of 1908 changing the day for county sales from the first Monday in March to the first Monday in April. The city of Greenville did not change their ordinance until after this sale was made, but the said city council adopted this chapter on revenue attempting and intending that the date of tax sales in the city should conform to the date of state and county sales. It evidently meant that as said chapter of the Code of 1892 was amended then the city ordinance would be automatically amended so as to conform with the legislative change.

Percy Bell, of Greenville, for appellees.

The city of Greenville operates under its own charter and at the time the sale complained of was made its ordinance provided that all of the provisions of chapter 116 entitled "Revenue of the Annotated Code of 1892 of the State of Mississippi" should apply to the city council of Greenville and such ordinance was not amended until 1927.

Chapter 116 of the Code of 1892, provided that all sales should be made on the first Monday in March. This sale was made the first Monday in April.

Such amendments as were contemplated by the city adopting ordinances of 1900 were only such amendments as were made to the Code at the time of the adoption.

Planter's Gin Milling Co. v. City of Greenville, 103 So. 796.


Appellant filed her bill to establish her tax title against appellees and to cancel as clouds the asserted title of appellees. The bill showed that the lot in question was sold for city taxes by the city tax collector, on the first Monday in April, 1926, and was unredeemed. The tax deed was made an exhibit, but the bill contained no averment that the original title had passed out of the government. It therefore stated no cause of action, and a final decree, although upon a decree pro confesso, would have been reversible, if not void. Lyon Co. v. Ratliff, 129 Miss. 342, 353, 92 So. 229; Griffith Chan. Prac., sections 219, 220.

However, appellees demurred on the very ground aforementioned, and the demurrer being overruled, appellees filed what is termed an "answer," in which the only denials or averments touching the tax deed or the tax title was the denial that complainant "is the owner of the land," and a denial "that the alleged sale of said land to complainant was a valid sale, and that said alleged tax deed conferred any title upon complainant." This was no more than a general traverse, and under section 380, Code 1930, was no answer at all. Wherefore if appellant had had a good bill and had ordered the case to the issue docket on bill and answer, as may be done, Griffith Chan. Prac., section 558, she would have been entitled to a decree.

Instead of taking the step last aforesaid, appellant moved ore tenus that appellees be required to make a more specific and complete answer, which motion was overruled. Whereupon appellees were allowed to prove by the municipal records that the city of Greenville, wherein the lot is located, is governed by a special charter and that at the time of the tax sale the date fixed by the ordinances of that city for tax sales was the first Monday in March, instead of the first Monday in April; the case being controlled in that respect by the principles announced in Planters' Gin Co. v. Greenville, 138 Miss. 876, 103 So. 796. The court thereupon dismissed the bill; so that in the end the right result was reached upon the merits, and one which would inevitably follow upon a reversal, even though the procedure on a new hearing were corrected.

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Metcalfe v. Wise

Supreme Court of Mississippi, Division B
Jan 26, 1931
132 So. 102 (Miss. 1931)
Case details for

Metcalfe v. Wise

Case Details

Full title:METCALFE v. WISE et al

Court:Supreme Court of Mississippi, Division B

Date published: Jan 26, 1931

Citations

132 So. 102 (Miss. 1931)
132 So. 102

Citing Cases

Johnson v. Lake

B.B. Carmichael, of Greenville, for appellant. In the case of Metcalfe v. Wise, 132 So. 102, Justice Griffith…

Mathis v. Olin Mathieson Chemical Corp.

A. Defendant wholly failed and refused to comply with the mandatory provisions of the Mississippi statute…