{ "id": 1344026, "name": "Walter v. Swaim", "name_abbreviation": "Walter v. Swaim", "decision_date": "1913-03-03", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "242", "last_page": "245", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "107 Ark. 242" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "30 Ark. 732", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1881167 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/30/0732-01" ] }, { "cite": "91 Ark. 117", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1511796 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/91/0117-01" ] }, { "cite": "97 Ark. 76", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1318781 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/97/0076-01" ] }, { "cite": "84 Ark. 1", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1524336 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/84/0001-01" ] }, { "cite": "92 Ark. 211", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1548594 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "212" } ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/92/0211-01" ] }, { "cite": "55 Ark. 192", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1322264 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/55/0192-01" ] }, { "cite": "80 Ark. 31", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1491229 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/80/0031-01" ] }, { "cite": "55 Ark. 218", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1322348 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/55/0218-01" ] }, { "cite": "65 Ark. 599", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "92 Ark. 211", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1548594 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/92/0211-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 318, "char_count": 5822, "ocr_confidence": 0.486, "pagerank": { "raw": 9.961721986493819e-08, "percentile": 0.5373535291053648 }, "sha256": "63dfe20678df472eaa2579b801515f875a8b685be7d0f099d57e31dd3a3343dd", "simhash": "1:39609b891f6a2dfc", "word_count": 1032 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:18:15.327905+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Walter v. Swaim." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Smith, J.\nAppellee brought this suit in the Poinsett Chancery Court to cancel a deed to appellant for the fractional north half, northwest quarter, section 18, township 10 north, range 2 east, situated in that county, from the State Land Commissioner.\nThe appellee deraigns his own title, and it is unnecessary here to set it out, as the only cloud on it, which appears from the record, is the deed which it seeks to cancel. The land was sold on the 8th day of June, 1896, for the State and county taxes for the year 1895, and at said sale the State of Arkansas was the purchaser, and the land not having been redeemed, the clerk of that county, on the 16th day of June, 1898, certified the forfeiture to the State Land Commissioner, who on April 26, 1910, executed to appellant the deed above mentioned. The question involved is the validity of this tax sale, which is attacked upon the following grounds:\n1. No notice of the sale of said tract of land was published in the form and manner and for the time prescribed by law.\n2. No record of said alleged tax sale was made by the clerk in the manner and form by law required.\nThe clerk\u2019s certificate to the notice of sale was as follows:\n\u201cState of Arkansas,\nCounty of Poinsett.\nI, J. C. Mitchell, clerk of the circuit and county court within and for the county aforesaid, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing list of lands returned delinquent for the nonpayment of taxes for the year 1895 was filed in my office on the 11th day of May, 1896, and that the same was carefully compared, recorded and published for two weeks successively in the Modern News, a weekly newspaper published in the said county, the first insertion being on the 22d day of May, 1896, and the last insertion appearing on the 5th day of June, 1896.\nIn testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of office, date and name. This the 6th day of June, 1896.\nJ. C. Mitchell, Clerk.\u201d\nSection 7085 of Kirby\u2019s Digest provides for the publication of the list of delinquent lands and its provisions are as follows:\n\u201cSection 7085. The clerks of the several counties of this State shall pause the list of the delinquent lands in their respective counties, as corrected by them, to be published weekly for two weeks, between the second Monday in May and the second Monday in June in each year. Such list of delinquent lands shall be published in some ' newspaper of the county, if any be published therein; if not, in some newspaper published nearest to said county having a circulation in such county. He shall also keep posted up on or about his office such delinquent list for one year. \u2019 \u2019\nThis section was construed in the case of Byrne v. Less, 92 Ark. 211, and Justice Battle, speaking for the court, there said: \u2018 \u2018 The statute provides that the delinquent list shall be published weekly for two weeks between the second Monday in May and the second Monday in June, in each year. Kirby\u2019s Digest, 7085. \u2018Weekly for two weeks\u2019 means two weeks in succession; for the two weeks it must be weekly.' It would not have been weekly if a month had intervened between the two insertions. A newspaper published every two weeks would not he a weekly, but a bi-weekly, and was not in compliance with the statute.\u201d And he further said: \u201cIn this case the notice required by the statute was not given. The owner of the land was not legally notified, and the sale is void.\u201d This opinion fits the facts of this case perfectly. The certificate recites that the delinquent list was published for two weeks successively in the Modern News, a weekly newspaper published in the said county, but it also recites that \u201cthe first insertion being on the 22d day of May, 1896, and the last insertion appearing on the 5th day of June, 1896:\u201d Publication on these dates could not have been weekly in succession and there is no affirmative showing that there was an intermediate publication.\nWe conclude, therefore, that the sale in question was void and that the chancellor was correct in so holding and the decree of the court below in cancelling said deed as a cloud upon appellee\u2019s title is affirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Smith, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Appellant pro se.", "Clyde Going, for appellee.", "Appellant pro se, in reply." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Walter v. Swaim.\nOpinion delivered March 3, 1913.\n1. Taxation\u2014weekly publication oe delinquent list.\u2014The requirement in Kirby\u2019s Digest, \u00a7 7085, that the list of lands delinquent for taxes, shall be published \u201cweekly for two weeks between the second Monday in May and the second Monday in June in each year,\u201d is not met by a publication, the first insertion of which is on May 22, and the last on June 5, because these two dates are not weekly in succession, and there being no affirmative showing that there was an intermediate publication. (Page 245.)\n2. Taxation\u2014insufficiency of notice.\u2014Failure of the clerk to publish the delinquent tax list for two weeks in succession as required by Kirby\u2019s Digest, \u00a7 7085, rendered the tax sale void. (Page 245.)\nAppeal from Poinsett Chancery court; L. C. Going, Special Chancellor;\naffirmed.\nAppellant pro se.\nThe clerk\u2019s certificate on its face shows a full compliance with the requirements of the statute. This record is conclusive and evidence aliunde would not be rer ceived to contradict it. Kirby\u2019s Dig. \u00a7 7086; 65 Ark. 599; 55 Ark. 218; 80 Ark. 31.\nClyde Going, for appellee.\nThe clerk\u2019s certificate showing the publication of the notice on May 22 and June 5, and not showing a publication between those dates is evidence that the publication was not in compliance with .the statute, and avoids the sale. 55 Ark. 192; 92 Ark. 211, 212; 84 Ark. 1.\nAppellant pro se, in reply.\nThe clerk\u2019s certificate in plain language states that the notice was published \u201ctwo weeks in succession\u201d in a \u201cweekly newspaper,\u201d etc. The omission in the certificate of the intervening date does not invalidate the notice. 97 Ark. 76; 91 Ark. 117; 30 Ark. 732; - 2 Cyc. 22." }, "file_name": "0242-01", "first_page_order": 260, "last_page_order": 263 }