{
  "id": 1897132,
  "name": "State Ex-Rel. Little River County vs. Certain Lands and Israel Hall",
  "name_abbreviation": "State ex rel. Little River County v. Certain Lands & Israel Hall",
  "decision_date": "1882-11",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "34",
  "last_page": "35",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "40 Ark. 34"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "21 Ark., 245",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "20 Ark, 277",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1869329
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/20/0277-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 241,
    "char_count": 2880,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.42,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.477485116034827e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6604556867987285
    },
    "sha256": "97de122b7af58c8d04fd9d412714337f02595d984723e6e8609e24b4a3534cd7",
    "simhash": "1:416bf8f9afba8d47",
    "word_count": 517
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:01:35.838243+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "State Ex-Rel. Little River County vs. Certain Lands and Israel Hall."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Smith, J.\nIn this proceeding it was sought, under the over-due tax law, to charge certain lands with the payment of the taxes for the year 1873. The defence was, that the lands had only been purchased from the State on the 14th of February, 1873, and were not therefore taxable for that year. To an answer setting up this defence the Court below overruled a demurrer, and the plaintiff standing upon the demurrer, the complaint was dismissed as to those lands.\nIt is provided that all lands sold by the State shall be subject to taxation immediately after such sale. The Assessor is to complete his assessment on or before the third Monday in September of each year, in which he is to include all real property in his county that shall have become subject to taxation since the last previous listing.\nAnd the State\u2019s lien for taxes attached, on the first Friday after the first |Monday in October of each yearGantt\u2019s Digest Secs. 5049, 5112, 5114, 5116, 5153.\nIn Hunt v. McFadgen, 20 Ark, 277, it was ruled that the personal property of a man who became a resident of a county on,the last of January or first of February was subject to assessment for that same year.\nImmunity from, taxation is never presumed in any case, but must be shown.\nSec. 5078 of Gantt\u2019s Digest, making it the duty of land holders to list their lands for taxation on or before the \u25a0 first of January of each year, after the sameshallbe taxable, is merely directory and does not imply that lands entered after January 1st shall not be subject to taxation until the following year.\nReversed and remanded for further' proceedings.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Smith, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "C. B. Moore, Attorney General, for the State.",
      "J. M. Rose, for Appeellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "State Ex-Rel. Little River County vs. Certain Lands and Israel Hall.\n1. Taxes : On lands purchased of the State; when they accrue. Lands purchased of the State are subject to taxes immediately after the purchase. Section 5078 of Gantt\u2019s Digest requiring land holders to assess their lands for taxes on or before the 1st of January of each year is merely directory, and does not imply that lands purchased after January 1st shall not be subject to taxation until the following year. '\nAPPEAL from Little River County in Chancery.\nHon. H. B. Stuart, Judge.\nC. B. Moore, Attorney General, for the State.\nThe lands were subject to taxation. Cites Gould\u2019s Dig. p. 694, Sec. 33; Lb. p. 704, Sec. 8; Miller\u2019s Digest Rev. Laxo, p. 3, Secs. 2,3, 60, 1, 2, 5,17, 66,18,19,20, 21, 22,105, 29; Gantt\u2019s Digest, Secs. 5048, 5043, 5113, 5114; Const. 1868, Art. X, Sec. 2; Acts 1871, p. 123, Secs. 5, 49, 50; Acts 1868, p. 330; Acts 1871, p. 38; Acts 1873, p. 266; Acts 1871; p. 35; 21 Ark., 245-6.\nJ. M. Rose, for Appeellees.\nSec. 5078 Grantt\u2019s Digest was enacted to cure a manifest injustice. The taxes if due at all are due in solido.\nNo Court can apportion the taxes in proportion to the time the purchaser had held from the State. By Sec. 5173 the lien did not attach \u2019till Dec. 1st, etc."
  },
  "file_name": "0034-01",
  "first_page_order": 32,
  "last_page_order": 33
}