{ "id": 1872368, "name": "Thornton v. Smith", "name_abbreviation": "Thornton v. Smith", "decision_date": "1880-11", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "508", "last_page": "510", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "36 Ark. 508" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "17 Ark., 546", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8726748, 8726725 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/17/0546-02", "/ark/17/0546-01" ] }, { "cite": "7 Ark., 424", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8727650 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/7/0424-01" ] }, { "cite": "4 Johns. Rep., 234", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Johns. Rep.,", "opinion_index": -1 } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 325, "char_count": 4226, "ocr_confidence": 0.466, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.2850087019717492e-07, "percentile": 0.6185092258274517 }, "sha256": "c2f95b43413377accbb3173213fd80909160b30e124c21ecdc1385886c545495", "simhash": "1:8bd74572cd70c3b9", "word_count": 750 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:05:42.990471+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Thornton v. Smith." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "English, O. J.\nThis suit was commenced on the chancery side of the circuit court of Sharp county, on the seventeenth of March, 1877, by James M. Thornton, a citizen of Tennessee, against Malissa J. Smith, a married woman.\nThe purpose of the suit was to caucel, as a cloud upon plaintiff\u2019s title, an auditor\u2019s donation deed, issued to defendant on the fourth of September, 1871, for the lands described in the bill, being one eighty, and two forty acre tracts, making 160 acres, which were unimproved and unoccupied, and situated in Lawrence county when forfeited to the state for the non-payment of taxes, etc., for the year 1866, and in Sharp county when donated to defendant, and when the suit was commenced.\nPlaintiff claimed title to the lands by virtue of a patent issued to him by the president of the United States, on the first of November, 1853, and alleged that, through his agents, he had paid all taxes charged upon them from the date of his patent, down to the time of suit, and particularly for the year 1866, for which they were returned forfeited. This, defendant, in his answer, denied, and pleaded the statute of limitations of two years.\n. Therfe)can be no doubt from the evidence, as the court found upon the hearing, that the lands were returned delinquent, by the collector of Lawrence county, for the nonpayment of the taxes \u00f3f 1866, advertised, offered for sale at the tax sale made by the collector, on the eleventh and twelfth, of March, 1867, forfeited to the state for want of a bidder, and so returned to the auditor, and were not redeemed.\nPlaintiff\u2019 produced a receipt of the collector for the taxes assessed upon the lands for the years 1866 and 1867, without date, but proved, by his agent, that the taxes were paid to the collector, and the receipt given by him in the fall of 1877. There was an attempt to prove that this receipt was a foi\u2019gery, or had been altered. But this is immaterial, for if genuine, it was of no validity, the collector having no authority at that time to receive the taxes.\nHaving been returned to the auditor as forfeited for the non-payment of taxes, penalty and costs charged upon them for the year 1866, they had to be redeemed, under the statute then in force, by paying the amount thereof, within two years from the date of forfeiture, into the treasury of the state, the amount to be ascertained by the auditor. Gould\u2019s Digest, secs. 138, 141, chap. 148.\nThe auditor\u2019s deed to defendant was in the usual form, and prima facie evidence of the regularity of the forfeiture, \u2022etc. It was in no material matter successfully attacked by plaintiff.\nThe court also held that the suit was barred by limitation, but the above defense was sufficient to defeat the plaintiff\u2019s bill, and it is needless to inquire into or decide the question of limitation.\nIt may be a misfortune for the plaintiff to lose his lands by the negligence of his agents, but there is no help for him in this suit. The court below dismissed the bill for want of equity, and the decree must be affirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "English, O. J." } ], "attorneys": [ "W. M. Davidson, for appellant:", "Henderson \u00bf- Garuth, for appellee':" ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Thornton v. Smith.\n1. Tax Sale: Taxes paid at wrong time.\nThe payment of taxes at a time when the collector is not authorized to receive them, will not avoid the subsequent sale of the land for the same taxes.\n2. Same: Auditor's deed: Evidence.\nAn huditor\u2019s donation deed, in - the usual form, is prima facie evidence of the regularity of the forfeiture of the land.\nAPPEAL from Sharp Circuit Court in Chancery.\nHon. R. H. Powell, Circuit Judge.\nW. M. Davidson, for appellant:\nCited revenue law in Gould\u2019s Digest, p. 933, secs. 22, 23; Boza v. Whitfield, 19- Ark., 449; Story on Agency, 160, 418, 421, 163, 269, 402, 403, 418, 429; Case v. Doyers, 3 Caine\u2019s Rep., 261; Jackson v. Baird, 4 Johns. Rep., 234; Heath, v. Ross, 12 ib., 140; Jackson v. Stagg, 2 ib., 520; McMichael et al. v.-, 3 Cowen, N. Y, 75; Jackson v. Ball, Johns. Rep., Gh. Ca., 81; Kelly v. Carson, 11 Wisconsin, \u2014.\nHenderson \u00bf- Garuth, for appellee':\nAuditor\u2019s deed prima fade evidence of performance of all requisite conditions. Gantt\u2019s Digest, see. 5221: Steadman v. Planters\u2019 Bank, 7 Ark., 424; Bettison v. Budd, 17 Ark., 546.\nAction barred. Gantt\u2019s Digest, see. 4117; Blackwell on Tax Titles (3d ed.), top pp. 57, 58." }, "file_name": "0508-01", "first_page_order": 506, "last_page_order": 508 }