{ "id": 1559453, "name": "Clay v. Barnes", "name_abbreviation": "Clay v. Barnes", "decision_date": "1915-12-20", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "474", "last_page": "478", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "121 Ark. 474" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "27 Ark. 585", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1885771 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/27/0585-01" ] }, { "cite": "74 Ark. 484", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8722692 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/74/0484-01" ] }, { "cite": "177 N. W. 10", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.W.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "101 Ark. 390", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1311023 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/101/0390-01" ] }, { "cite": "37 Ark. 286", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1870987 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/37/0286-01" ] }, { "cite": "37 Ark. 187", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "286" }, { "page": "329" } ], "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "50 Ark. 458", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8723708 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/50/0458-01" ] }, { "cite": "23 Ark. 746", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1866064 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/23/0746-01" ] }, { "cite": "13 U. S- 338", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "31 Ark. 353", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "72 Ark. 107", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "76 Ark. 450", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1500959 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/76/0450-01" ] }, { "cite": "105 Ark. 99", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1347064 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/105/0099-01" ] }, { "cite": "105 Ark. 59", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "51 Ark. 34", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8719807 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "92" } ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/51/0034-01" ] }, { "cite": "45 Mich. 347", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mich.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "105 Ark. 5", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1346991 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/105/0005-01" ] }, { "cite": "79 Ark. 236", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1495658 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "236" } ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/79/0236-01" ] }, { "cite": "109 Ark. 499", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1341193 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/109/0499-01" ] }, { "cite": "177 S. W. 10", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "118 Ark. 449", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1562576 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/118/0449-01" ] }, { "cite": "101 Ark. 390", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1311023 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/101/0390-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 500, "char_count": 9272, "ocr_confidence": 0.496, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.9217073075836406e-07, "percentile": 0.7330724687037738 }, "sha256": "a52e4e2e91d7029a4c6c718ccd06addacd1e708b2f02297b4b69e2f9dfe3cbc5", "simhash": "1:a81486cb4f164056", "word_count": 1651 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:35:38.519565+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Justices Hart and Smith dissent." ], "parties": [ "Clay v. Barnes." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Kirby, J.,\n(after stating the'facts). It appears from the allegations of the complaint that appellees are in possession -of the lands -and claiming them through the commissioner\u2019s deed executed under the decree of the chancery court against L. W. White, and others, foreclosing the lien for overdue taxes in a drainage district at the suit of the collector, the appellant claiming to be the owner of the lands by conveyances from said L. W. White. The collector was the proper party to bring the suit for the collection of the delinquent taxes under the provisions of the law under which the district was established.\nThe complaint alleges -that the decree of the chancery court foreclosing the lien of the drainage district for faxes is regular .and valid and the sale and commissioner\u2019s deed thereunder likewise valid, insofar as shown by the -record of the case and that the invalidity of the decree for want of the alleged notice and of the commissioner\u2019s deed, \u201cdoes not appear upon the face of the judgment or decree or upon the record in the cause, but must be established by evidence aiiunde.\u201d\nThe purpose of the suit as disclosed by the complaint is to set aside the decree and cancel the deeds of the commissioner .and other grantors of appellee, as clouds upon appellant\u2019s title and for possession of the lands claimed.\nIt is not a proceeding in the original suit in any. direct manner, to have such judgment vacated for any of the grounds authorizing vacation of judgments under the statute, but is an independent proceeding merely, having as its chief purpose the gaining of the possession of the lands claimed and the cancellation of the conveyance to appellee as a cloud upon the title. Such proceeding constitutes no more than a collateral attack upon the said decree of the chancery court, under which the land in controversy was condemned and sold. Cassady v. Norris, 118 Ark. 449, 177 S. W. 10.\nEvery presumption will be indulged in favor of the jurisdiction of such court and the validity of the judgment which it enters, and unless it affirmatively appears from the record itself that the facts essential to the jurisdiction of such court did not exist, such collateral attack against the judgment rendered by it can not prevail. Crittenden Lumber Co. v. McDougal, 101 Ark. 390.\nThe decree attacked recites that the parties were duly served with process as required by law, and the complaint itself alleges that it and the commissioner\u2019s deed at the sale thereunder are in all respects regular and valid so far as shown by the record of the case, thus showing conclusively that the want of notice and defects complained of, are not such as can prevail against a judgment or decree regular upon its face in a collateral attack.\nIn the court\u2019s view of the law of this case above announced, it becomes unnecessary to decide the other questions raised, and the allegations of the complaint not being sufficient to constitute a cause of action, the court did not err in sustaining the demurrer. The decree is accordingly affirmed.\nJustices Hart and Smith dissent.", "type": "majority", "author": "Kirby, J.," } ], "attorneys": [ "J. W. Story, for appellant.", "J. W. Morrotu and G. W. Norton, for appellees." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Clay v. Barnes.\nOpinion delivered December 20, 1915.\n1. Taxes \u2014 collection of delinquent taxes \u2014 parties.\u2014The collector Is the proper party to .bring a suit for the collection of delinquent taxes under the provisions of Act 279, Acts 1909, creating a certain improvement district.\n2. Taxes \u2014 sale foe delinquency \u2014 collateral attack. \u2014 A decree of chancery ordering a sale of land for delinquent taxes, can not be attacked collaterally in an action merely to set aside the decree as a cloud on plaintiff\u2019s title.\n3. Equity jurisdiction \u2014 validity of decree \u2014 presumption.\u2014The decree of a chancery court confirming the sale .of lands for nonpayment of taxes, \u25a0will be presumed valid, unless it appears from the record that the court -was without jurisdiction.\nAppeal from St. Francis Chancery Court; Edward D. Robertson, Chancellor;\naffirmed.\nSTATEMENT by the court.\nAppellant brought this suit in the chancery court to cancel certain deeds to appellee and his grantors as clouds upon his title and alleged that he purchased the lands that were conveyed to him by a warranty deed by one L. W. White, who was the owner and in possession thereof at the time of such conveyance,\nHe attacked the validity of the commissioner\u2019s deed made under a decree of the chancery court at the suit of the collector of a drainage district' in St. Francis County, foreclosing the lien for taxes against the land, alleging that the suit was instituted and prosecuted in the name of the collector and not by the district, and because no notice of the suit was given or published as the' law requires, and in the amended complaint alleged \u201cthe invalidity of the decree ordering the sale of the land in controversy, does not appear upon the face of the decree or upon or by any record in the case in which it was rendered, iand that the wiant of publication of notice alleged and complained of in plaintiff\u2019s complaint does not appear upon the face of the judgment or decree or upon record in the cause, but the same must be established by evidence ialiunde. \u201d And also that the invalidity of the commissioner\u2019s deed did not appear upon the face thereof or upon the record, but \u201cis upon its face and so far as anything appears of record in said case, of which it was made valid.\u201d\nIt was also alleged that the defendants were in possession of the land holding by conveyance under said decree and the conveyances set out in the complaint, etc., and \u201cthat neither the plaintiff nor his vendor had notice or knowledge of said suit, judgment or proceedings complained of before said sale was made by said commissioner or until the time of bringing this suit.\u201d Prayer for cancellation of said judgment and decree and all the deeds of conveyances and that his title be quieted and for general relief.\nA general demurrer was interposed to .the complaint and sustained, the court holding the facts stated not sufficient to constitute a cause of action within the jurisdiction of a court of equity, and the plaintiff declining to amend, dismissed the complaint for want of equity, from which order this appeal is prosecuted.\nJ. W. Story, for appellant.\n1. The complaint states a cause of action. (1) It \u25a0alleges that appellant\u2019s title.is deraigned from a common source. 109 Ark. 499.\n(2) The appellees claim under a decree in chancery to enforce a lien for drainage taxes against L. W. White and others. Appellant claims under conveyance from L. W. White. The assessment was under Act 279, Acts 1909. This ease does not fall within the provisions- of section 5999, Kirby\u2019s Digest. (3) No notice was given as required by law. \u00a7 23, Acts 1909, Act No. 279; \u00a7 7, Act No. Ill, Acts 1907; \u00a7 1, Act 49, Acts 1911. The provision is mandatory. Notice must be given as required by law. 79 Ark. 236; 47 Id. 236; lb. 407; 52 Id. 511; 70 Id. 326; 30 Id. 610; 59 Id. 344. Notice is a jurisdictional fact. 105 Ark. 5. Tax statutes must be strictly followed. Cooley Taxation, 280-8; Desty Taxation 515; 45 Mich. 347; 51 Ark. 34; 91 Id. 92.\n2. The court had jurisdiction. 105 Ark. 59'2; Pom. Eq. Jur. 423. The remedy at law would have been ejectment and would havebeen met with appellees\u2019 prima facie title, the commissioner\u2019s deed. Kirby\u2019s Dig., \u00a7 \u00a7 760, 761, 7104; 105 Ark. 99; 101 Id. 301; 82 Id. 31. Then the burden would have been on appellant to show the invalidity of appellee\u2019s title. 76 Ark. 450. In cases of collateral attacks on domestic judgments the question of notice must \u2022be tried upon the record only. 72 Ark. 107. Unless the remedy at law is complete, equity has jurisdiction. 31 Ark. 353; .8 Id. 57; 48 Id. 435; 13 U. S- 338; 23 Ark. 746; 29 Id. 613.\n2. The recital in the decree as to service of process is not sufficient.\n3. The complaint follows the decisions of this court. 50 Ark. 458; 33 Id. 770; 101 Id. 142; 56 Id. 544; 112 Id. 467; 28 Id. 147; Black on Judgments, \u00a7 307.\n4. This is a direct attack on the decree. Van Vleet on Collateral Attack, \u00a7 3; 20 Oregon 96; Elliott, Gen. Practice, \u00a7 330.\n5. The -purpose of, this suit is to annul a decree and cancel deeds, and is clearly a case of equitable jurisdiction. 37 Ark. 187, 286; 111 Id. 329; 52 Id. 541; 30 Id. 279.\n6,. If the suit was brought in equity, when it should have been at law, the court should have transferred it, and not dismissed the complaint. \u25a0 Kirby\u2019s Big., \u00a7 \u00a7 5991-2-4; 37 Ark. 286; 51 Id. 235; 85 Id. 208; 87 Id. 142; 81 Id. 41.\nJ. W. Morrotu and G. W. Norton, for appellees.\n1. The complaint states no cause of action. The recitals in the decree are conclusive. The decree was regular on its face. 101 Ark. 390; 177 N. W. 10.\n2. Chancery courts have no jurisdiction where plaintiff is in possession.- This was simply an effort'to deprive appellee of .a right to trial by a jury. The demurrer questions the jurisdiction. The complaint seeks to collaterally attack a valid decree upon its face. Kirby\u2019s Dig., \u00a7 6518; 74 Ark. 484; 80 Id. 411; lb. 415; 56 Id. 370; 23 Id. 746; 30 Id. 579; 37 Id. 643; 43 Id. 28; 44 Id. 436; 66 Id. 646; 56 Id. 93. The case should be dismissed. Kirby\u2019s Dig., \u00a7 5992. No desire to transfer was intimated, and the right, if .any, was waived. 27 Ark. 585; 28 Id. 458; 31 Id. 411; 32 Id. 562; 66 Id. 646; 81 Id. 41." }, "file_name": "0474-01", "first_page_order": 498, "last_page_order": 502 }