{ "id": 8723566, "name": "Massengale v. Brown", "name_abbreviation": "Massengale v. Brown", "decision_date": "1923-06-25", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "566", "last_page": "569", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "159 Ark. 566" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "142 Ark. 293", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1590507 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/142/0293-01" ] }, { "cite": "99 Ark. 137", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1314530 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/99/0137-01" ] }, { "cite": "133 Ark. 559", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1575131 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/133/0559-01" ] }, { "cite": "84 Ark. 1", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1524336 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/84/0001-01" ] }, { "cite": "73 Ark. 557", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1503996 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/73/0557-01" ] }, { "cite": "74 Ark. 343", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8720973 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/74/0343-01" ] }, { "cite": "76 Ark. 551", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1501054 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/76/0551-01" ] }, { "cite": "74 Ark. 572", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8723676 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/74/0572-01" ] }, { "cite": "42 Ark. 215", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8723006 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/42/0215-01" ] }, { "cite": "39 Ark. 580", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1898696 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/39/0580-01" ] }, { "cite": "21 Pac. 776", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "41 Kan. 751", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Kan.", "case_ids": [ 1183582 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/kan/41/0751-01" ] }, { "cite": "83 N. E. 730", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "112 N. W. 930", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.W.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "119 N. W. 912", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.W.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "155 Mich. 502", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mich.", "case_ids": [ 1590785 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/mich/155/0502-01" ] }, { "cite": "37 la. 601", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Iowa", "case_ids": [ 106365 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/iowa/37/0601-01" ] }, { "cite": "31 la. 578", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Iowa", "case_ids": [ 2296739 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/iowa/31/0578-01" ] }, { "cite": "6 Wall. 268", "category": "reporters:scotus_early", "reporter": "Wall.", "case_ids": [ 3455630 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/us/73/0268-01" ] }, { "cite": "15 Am. Dec. 576", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "Am. Dec.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "2 Ohio 504", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ohio", "case_ids": [ 574412 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ohio/2/0467-01" ] }, { "cite": "73 S. E. 261", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "70 W. Va. 136", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "W. Va.", "case_ids": [ 8632323 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/w-va/70/0136-01" ] }, { "cite": "130 Ark. 424", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8721121 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/130/0424-01" ] }, { "cite": "100 Ark. 488", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1312277 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/100/0488-01" ] }, { "cite": "83 Ark. 196", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1527094 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/83/0196-01" ] }, { "cite": "81 Ark. 319", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1530600 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/81/0319-01" ] }, { "cite": "84 Ark. 1", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1524336 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/84/0001-01" ] }, { "cite": "73 Ark. 557", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1503996 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/73/0557-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 422, "char_count": 6153, "ocr_confidence": 0.479, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.20856061492388167 }, "sha256": "9bf6e9bebf7ab5d84ee4aeea44198bc6dceb142bf63dfc9efb2f1a4982c43b03", "simhash": "1:929c68a23ac1db56", "word_count": 1113 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:08:10.395675+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Massengale v. Brown." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Wood, J.\nThis action was instituted by the appellant against the appellee. The appellant alleged that he is the owner of a certain tract of land, which he described in his complaint; that he acquired title thereto as follows: \u201cCain, sheriff, to J. E. Massengale, trustee deed, dated September 4, 1908, and recorded in Deed Record Book 3, p. 117.\u201d He alleged that he is a-nonresident of the State, and that Harry M. Woods of Augusta, Arkansas, was his agent, with instructions to pay the taxes on the land, but that he failed to pay same for the year 1914, and the same was returned delinquent for that year; that appellee, Brown, purchased the land at a tax' sale'by the collector of Prairie County on the 10th day of June, 1915, \u2019 for the taxes of 1914, and on the 25th day of June,' 1917, received a clerk\u2019s deed therefor and had the sain\u00e9 duly recorded in the records of the Northern District Of Prairie County. He set up that the tax sale was void for the reason that the land was not sold at competitive 'bidding, as required by \u00a7'8739 of Kirby & Castle\u2019s Digest;' that' the bidding at the sale was stifled by agreement of the bidders not to bid against each other, but to bid the lands in as a whole, each bidder taking his turn as the land numbers were called, and also because there' was \u25a0 no legal levy of school, county or road taxes in School District No. 10 for the year 1914, and because the clerk erred in charging only the penalty of ten per cent., when the penalty of twenty-five per cent, is required by law. The appellant tendered, in his complaint, the taxes and expenses incurred by the appellee for tax deed, and alleged that the appellee\u2019s deed was a cloud on his title, and prayed- that the deed be canceled.\nThe appellee answered, and denied the allegations of the complaint. The appellant filed an affidavit that he had tendered the taxes to the appellee. To sustain his complaint, the appellant deraigned title through one W. R. Cain, acting sheriff of Woodruff County, substituted trustee in a deed of trust, by which the land in controversy was conveyed, under a special power - and according to the terms specified in the deed of trust, from the American Sawmill Company, a corporation, to the Massengale Lumber Company.\nTestimony was adduced bearing upon the other issues raised in the complaint and answer, but the conclusion we have reached makes it unnecessary to set it forth. The court rendered a decree dismissing th\u00e9 complaint for want of equity, from which is this appeal.\n- Section 10110, Crawford & Moses\u2019 Digest, among other-things, provides as follows: \u201cBut no person shall be permitted to question the title acquired by a deed of the clerk of the county court without first showing that he, or the person under whom he claims title to the property, had title thereto at the time of the sale, o.r that title was obtained from the United States or this' State after the sale, and that all taxes due upon the' property have been paid by such person, or the person under whom he claims title as aforesaid.\u201d\nThe testimony in this record, as abstracted by'the-appellant, does not prove that the American Sawmill Company had any title to the land conveyed by the deed of trust to the Massengale Lumber Company. The allegations of th\u00e9 complaint show that this, action is an attack upon the tax deed executed to the appellee by the clerk under the provisions of \u00a7 10108 of Crawford & Moses\u2019 Digest, and which was prima facie evidence of title in him. Sec. 10109, C. & M. Digest; Sawyer v. Wilson, 81 Ark. 319; Gammon v. Moore, 83 Ark. 196; Alexander v. Capps, 100 Ark. 488; Newman v. Lybrand, 130 Ark. 424.\nIt was essential to the maintenance of the appellant\u2019s action that he prove that he or those under whom he holds had title at the time of the sale, or that title was obtained from the United States or this State after the sale. Osceola Milling Co. v. Chicago Lumber Co., 84 Ark. 1. See also Rhea v. McWilliams, 73 Ark. 557. This the appellant did not do. Therefore the decree is in all things correct, and it is affirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Wood, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Emmet Vaughan, for appellant.", "F. E. Brown, pro se." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Massengale v. Brown.\nOpinion delivered June 25, 1923.\nQuieting title \u2014 Removal op tax title \u2014 burden op proof. \u2014 It is essential to the maintenance of an action to remove a clerk\u2019s tax deed as a cloud upon plaintiff\u2019s title, under Crawford & Moses\u2019 Dig., \u00a7 10110, that plaintiff should prove that he or those under whom he holds had title at the time of the sale, or that title was obtained from the United States or this State after the sale.\nAppeal from Prairie Chancery Court, Northern District; John' M. Elliott, Chancellor;\naffirmed.\nEmmet Vaughan, for appellant.\nTax sale was void because there was no competitive bidding. 70 W. Va. 136, 73 S. E. 261; 2 Ohio 504, 15 Am. Dec. 576; 6 Wall. 268, 18 U. S. L. ed. 796; 31 la. 578; 37 la. 601; 1 Blackwell on Tax Titles, 559; 2 Cooley on Taxation, 943. It is undisputed that there was an agreement among the persons present at the sale not to bid against each other. Tax levy was void. Taxes were levied, before the appropriations were made, contrary to law. Insufficient penalty added. C. & M. Digest, 10086; 37 Cyc. 1289, 1290, note 65; 155 Mich. 502, 119 N. W. 912; 112 N. W. 930; 37 Cyc. 1338; 83 N. E. 730 ; 41 Kan. 751, 21 Pac. 776. Defendant denied that plaintiff acquired title under the sheriff\u2019s sale, but his deed was color of title entitling it to redeem. 39 Ark. 580; 42 Ark. 215; 74 Ark. 572; 76 Ark. 551; 74 Ark. 343.\nF. E. Brown, pro se.\nPlaintiff must show title in himself, in order to have an outstanding tax deed canceled as a clond on his title, under \u00a7 10110, C. & M. Digest. Necessary for plaintiff to show'title in himself or that title was obtained from the United States or from this State after the sale, .all of which he failed to do. Did not even testify that he was the owner of the land when it was sold for taxes. 73 Ark. 557; 84 Ark. 1; 133 Ark. 559; 99 Ark. 137. To avoid a tax sale the unlawful combination between the bidders must be clearly and conclusively proved. Ann. Cas. 1913-D 959; 134 N. W. (N.D.) 43. Testimony does not show levy made before appropriations. Case is controlled by 142 Ark. 293." }, "file_name": "0566-01", "first_page_order": 592, "last_page_order": 595 }