{
  "id": 8724266,
  "name": "Dodson v. Thomason",
  "name_abbreviation": "Dodson v. Thomason",
  "decision_date": "1950-10-23",
  "docket_number": "4-9256",
  "first_page": "747",
  "last_page": "749",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "217 Ark. 747"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "233 S.W.2d 395"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "229 S. W. 2d 660",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        8719280
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/217/0281-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "208 Ark. 768",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1478510
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/208/0768-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "202 Ark. 590",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1449966
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/202/0590-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "216 Ark. 821",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1614134
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/216/0821-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "212 Ark. 727",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1470162
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/212/0727-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "1 A. L. R. 1225",
      "category": "reporters:specialty",
      "reporter": "A.L.R.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "196 S. W. 118",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "129 Ark. 334",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1580472
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/129/0334-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 328,
    "char_count": 4552,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.505,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.553285487460147e-08,
      "percentile": 0.40168017517623616
    },
    "sha256": "e7976e689969cc92ac4ed621225fcd620c09f31802dc82edd2782ec372d22da3",
    "simhash": "1:ea54eaed6e3b431b",
    "word_count": 774
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:48:24.265381+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Dodson v. Thomason."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Leflar, J.\nAppellant brought ejectment for two town lots in appellees\u2019 possession in Brinkley, Ark. Appellees answered, filed a cross-complaint setting out title in themselves and praying that same be quieted by decree, and moved that the case be transferred to equity. The motion to transfer was granted, appellant\u2019s motion to re-transfer to Circuit Court was denied and, after hearing before the Chancellor, a decree was rendered dismissing appellant\u2019s complaint and quieting title in appellees in accordance with the cross-complaint. This appeal followed.\nBoth appellant and appellees have tax deeds from the State, and each of them thought his deed conveyed tito land i.11 question, though the descriptions in each deed were inaccurate. A correct description of the land is \u201cLots 7 and 8 in the \"West half of the East half (W% of E%) of Block B, Brinkley Car Works & Mfg. Co.\u2019s Subdivision of the Town of Brinkley, Ark.\u201d\nAppellees received deeds from the State to the two lots in 1936 and 1942 respectively, under descriptions which may without discussion be assumed to have been inadequate. They have been in possession and active occupancy under claim of title since those dates.\nAppellant received his deed from the State in 1948. This deed was based on a 1940 tax sale to the State under the description \u201cLots Seven (7) and Eight (8) in the West Half (Wy2) of the East Half (E%) of Block \u2018B,\u2019 City of Brinkley,\u201d and the 1948 deed to appellant employed the same description. It is agreed that there are several Block B\u2019s within the City of Brinkley, the stipulation of the parties enumerating a Block B in Pat Howard\u2019s Addition which includes lots numbered 7 and 8 and a Block B in Emmons\u2019 Addition which includes lots numbered 7 and 8, as well as the Block B in the Brinkley Car Works & Mfg. Co. Subdivision which contains the lots numbered 7 and 8 which are now before us.\nExtrinsic circumstances are suggested which might make possible an identification of the lots in question, apart from the incomplete description used in the tax sale and in appellant\u2019s deed. These circumstances do not suffice to validate the tax sale through which appellant derives his claim to title. The description was too indefinite to enable the owner or the public to identify the land being sold with that certainty which is requisite in tax sale proceedings. Brinkley v. Halliburton, 129 Ark. 334, 196 S. W. 118, 1 A. L. R. 1225; Schuman v. Laser, 212 Ark. 727, 207 S. W. 2d 308; Jones, Arkansas Titles, \u00a7\u00a7 248, 250. And see Stout v. Healey, 216 Ark. 821, 228 S. W. 2d 45. Appellant has not shown good title in himself.\nAppellant contends, however, that he should win because appellees\u2019 title is not good. Appellees are in possession, and apparently have been in possession for the statutory period for acquisition of title by adverse possession. Ark. Stats. \u00a7 37-101. But appellant points out that there can be no adverse possession against the State, and concludes from this that appellees in this case can urge no claims based on adverse possession. That does not follow. Appellant acquired no title from the State through the tax sale and State deed described above. Even if the State does have a tax title in this land, which does not appear, appellant does not stand in the place of the State. Appellees are not pleading adverse possession -against the State, but against appellant. Furthermore, appellant claiming in ejectment must succeed on the strength of his own title and not on the weakness of the title of his adversary. Knight v. Rogers, 202 Ark. 590, 151 S. W. 2d 669; Jackson v. Gregory, 208 Ark. 768, 187 S. W. 2d 547. In the complete absence of a showing of title in plaintiff (appellant), he could not win even though appellees\u2019 only showing was one of prior possession.\nAppellant also urges error in the Chancellor\u2019s refusal to retransfer the cause to .the Circuit Court. Ap-pellees\u2019 answer and cross-complaint not only denied the allegations of appellant\u2019s complaint but also prayed that appellees\u2019 own title be quieted on the basis of facts alleged in the cross-complaint. This prayer for equitable relief was ample basis for retention of jurisdiction by the Chancery Court over the whole case. Thomason v. Abbott, ante, p. 281, 229 S. W. 2d 660. Appellant\u2019s motion to retransfer to the law docket was properly denied.\nThe decree is affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Leflar, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Alonso D. Camp, for appellant.",
      "Sharp & Sharp and Fred MacDonald, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Dodson v. Thomason.\n4-9256\n233 S. W. 2d 395\nOpinion delivered October 23, 1950.\nBehearing denied November 20, 1950.\nAlonso D. Camp, for appellant.\nSharp & Sharp and Fred MacDonald, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0747-01",
  "first_page_order": 771,
  "last_page_order": 773
}