{
  "id": 1559387,
  "name": "St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Ry. Co. v. Blaylock",
  "name_abbreviation": "St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Ry. Co. v. Blaylock",
  "decision_date": "1915-12-20",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "402",
  "last_page": "404",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "121 Ark. 402"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "66 Ark. 452",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1909805
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/66/0452-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "68 Ark. 71",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1333884
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "171"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/68/0071-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "33 Ark. 465",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8724669
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/33/0465-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "56 Ark. 374",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "weight": 2,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "505"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "146 Ind. 186",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ind.",
      "case_ids": [
        1572001
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ind/146/0186-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "92 Ark 167",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1548617
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/92/0167-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "52 Ark. 411",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1913345
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/52/0411-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 292,
    "char_count": 4481,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.433,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.317852702137001e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4360891310651702
    },
    "sha256": "dbfa5852aa073ac5e0aab539eeeb6ded8725b7a11238f56a2c639adbe553c9d4",
    "simhash": "1:68eb24358b210f28",
    "word_count": 805
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:35:38.519565+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Ry. Co. v. Blaylock."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Kirby, J.\nAppellant brought this suit in equity, claiming to be the owner of certain lands -and deraigning title thereto .and to have paid a certain amount for taxes for certain years, the last payment in 1895, and prayed that its title be quieted and appellee\u2019s title declared void.\nAppellee answered, denying that appellant was the owner of the lands or ever had been in possession thereof, deraigned his title thereto .and alleged that he had been in the actual, adverse possession thereof from 1882 and denied that any taxes had been paid by appellant as claimed and pleaded limitations and laches as his defense to the suit and moved to transfer the case to law, which was done.\nAppellant thereupon filed an (amendment to its complaint, (alleging \u201cthat believing itself to be the owner of the land and under color of title as stated, it had paid the taxes as .alleged in the complaint and was entitled to a lien upon the land to secure a repayment of said sum and prayed if the title should ibe found to be in the defendant, that' the cause be transferred to equity in order that said lien could be declared and enforced.\nThe court denied the motion to transfer, and the cause being submitted to the court without a jury, found the title of the land to be in the defendant \u00a1and held the plaintiff\u2019s claim for taxes barred by the .statute of limitations and from this judgment this appeal is prosecuted.\nIt app\u00f3airs from the testimony that (appellant paid the taxes on the lands for the years 1875 to 1879 inclusive, 1883, 1884, 1898, 1899, 1904 and 1905, amounting, with interest, to the sum claimed, and that appellee had been in the actual, open, continuous \u00a1and adverse possession of the land since 1882, claiming under a warranty deed from the original entryman from the United States. The last payment of taxes was in the year 1905 and the complaint was filed on the 29th day of June, 1914, more than nine years thereafter.\nThe lien given' by see. 2754, Kirby\u2019s Digest, to the person in possession of land, who believing himself to be the owner, under color of title, makes improvements and pays taxes thereon, was intended for the protection of the person in possession 'and can not be'invoked by appellant, who was never in possession of the lands. Neither did it pay any taxes thereon under a void tax deed and can not claim the hen 'given under section 7112, Kirby\u2019s Digest, nor the act of July 23, 1868. It had no lien, therefore, upon the lands for the taxes paid and was not entitled to a transfer of the oause to equity. Any right it may have had for the repayment of the taxes claimed to have been paid by it, accrued more than five years before the bringing of the suit and was consequently barred by the statute of limitations.\nThe judgment was correct, and is affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Kirby, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "G. M. Walser, for appellant.",
      "8. A. D. Eaton, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Ry. Co. v. Blaylock.\nOpinion delivered December 20, 1915.\n1. Taxes \u2014 payment\u2014lien\u2014person in possession. \u2014 Kirlby\u2019s Digest, i\u00a7 2754, giving a lien to the person in possession of land, who, believing himself to be the owner, under color of title, makes improvements and pays taxes thereon, is intended for the protection of the person in possession, and can not be invoked by one who was never in possession of the land.\n2. Taxes \u2014 recovery\u2014limitations.\u2014Any right which one has to recover taxes paid upon lands to which the appellant held color of title is barred by the five-year statute of limitations.\nAppeal from Randolph Circuit Court; J. B. Baker, Judge;\naffirmed.\nG. M. Walser, for appellant.\n1. The .suit was properly brought in the chancery oourt. Kirby\u2019s Digest, <\u00a7 5984; 52 Ark. 411; 56 Id. 370. This was not ;a suit in ejectment and no relief was asked except equitable relief.\n2. The isuit was not barred by limitation. 92 Ark 167; 146 Ind. 186.\n8. A. D. Eaton, for appellee.\n1. Appellee was in the actual, adverse, etc., possession of the land, claiming title and had the constitutional right to a trial at law. Const., art. 2, \u00a7 7; 56 Ark. 374; 65 Id. 505.\n2. Kirby\u2019s Digest, \u00a7 2754, provides a remedy for a defendant who is in possession of land, under color of title. The remedy is a legal one.\n3. Appellee\u2019s long continued possession put appellant upon notice of bis claim. 33 Ark. 465; 66 Id. 167. Being thus advised, the payment of taxes by appellant was purely voluntary. 37 Cyc, 375.\n4. The suit is barred. 37 Cyc. 387, et seq. The claim is stale. 68 Ark. 71; 79 Id. 171; 37 Cyc. 387. See also Kirby\u2019s Digest, \u00a7 5064; 66 Ark. 452. \u2022"
  },
  "file_name": "0402-01",
  "first_page_order": 426,
  "last_page_order": 428
}