{
  "id": 8723076,
  "name": "Fuller v. Evatt",
  "name_abbreviation": "Fuller v. Evatt",
  "decision_date": "1883-11",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "230",
  "last_page": "232",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "42 Ark. 230"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "13 Barb., 817",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Barb.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "1 How., 311",
      "category": "reporters:scotus_early",
      "reporter": "How.",
      "case_ids": [
        3325053
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/42/0311-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "25 Ark., 235",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1864534
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/25/0235-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "1 Bibb, 295",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Bibb",
      "case_ids": [
        6684674
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ky/4/0295-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "3 Met., 521",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Met.,",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "13 Cal, 609",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Cal.",
      "case_ids": [
        2217664
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/cal/13/0609-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "6 Cush., 70",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Cush.",
      "case_ids": [
        1989621
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/mass/60/0070-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 327,
    "char_count": 4518,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.453,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20855308552738017
    },
    "sha256": "547434058b1c2a628e7fdd88bc483dc146bde8928fc7fbc4e0ba8c39c11e0e7a",
    "simhash": "1:7eda4a252d31c11d",
    "word_count": 796
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:26:49.915053+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Fuller v. Evatt."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Smith, J.\nUpon a judgment recovered in Sebastian Circuit Court against Fuller, an execution Avas issued to Scott County and was levied upon land. Under this writ it Avas sold to one Finley on the tAventieth of March, 1880. On the fourteenth of October, 1880, the judgment debtor applied to the clerk of the court out of Avhich the writ had issued to redeem, and a redemption was permitted upon payment of the pui\u2019chase money, Avith interest at fifteen per cent, per annum. However, on the twentieth of April, 18S0, Finley had paid to the collector of Scott County the taxes for 1879, amounting to $2.50. After the expiration of twelve months from the sale, the sheriff conveyed the land to the purchaser, his deed reciting that the sale had not been redeemed from. And the purchaser sold and conveyed to Evatt, who brought ejectment. A jury being waived, the court found the facts as above stated, and declared the law to be that the attempted redemption was ineffectual, and that the legal title had passed to and vested in the plaintiff\u2019.\nPurchaser's remedy is by action at law.\nSection 2697 of Gantt\u2019s Digest provides that the debtor may redeem, at any time within twelve months, by paying to the clerk of the court out of which the execution issued, the purchase money, with fifteen per cent. per annum, aud all lawful charges.\nThe only question is, whether the expression \u201c lawful charges\u201d includes taxes paid by the purchaser after the sale under execution and before redemption.\nWhile redemption is a statutory right, and to be pursued under the terms and upon the conditions prescribed by the statute which confers the right, yet it is not expressly required that the owner, to entitle himself to redeem, shall refund taxes subsequently advanced by the purchaser. Nor are we at liberty to infer that this meaning was in the mind of the Legislature. Courts can not incorporate new terms into the provisions of a statute. While it would have been eminently just to make the repayment of such taxes a condition of redemption, it is probable the Legislature would have distinctly said so if such had been their meaning, and would have provided some method of bringing such payments to the notice of the officer before whom the redemption is to be effected. \u201c Charges \u201d here mean the costs of the clerk connected with the act of redeeming. And the purchaser is remitted to his action at law against the party for whose use and benefit he may have paid the taxes.\nReversed, and remanded for a new trial.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Smith, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Duval Cravens for appellant.",
      "Glendenning \u00bf- Sandels for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Fuller v. Evatt.\nExecution Sale : Redemption: Taxes paid by purchaser not included.\nThe owner of land sold under execution may redeem it without paying the taxes paid on it by the purchaser since his purchase. They are no part of \u201c the lawful charges\u201d required by the statute. The purchaser\u2019s remedy for them is by action at law.\nAPPEAL from Scott Circuit Court.\nHon. William Walkek, Circuit Judge.\nDuval Cravens for appellant.\nTaxes are not within the meaning or intent of the words \u201c and all lawful charges,\u201d in section 2697 Gantt\u2019s Digest.\nThey refer entirely to such charges as were allowed to be made by the clerk, and which were on file or ascertainable in his office. Rover on Jiul. Sales, sec. 1162; Freeman on Ex., 323, 333 ; 6 Cush., 70; 13 Cal, 609; 2 Burr., 1052, etc.; 3 Met., 521; 9 Serg. $ R., 109; 1 Bibb, 295.\nThe clerk, under our revenue law, is not authorized to collect taxes assessed upon land.\nEXECUTION Sale: Redemption. Taxes not included.\nGlendenning \u00bf- Sandels for appellee.\nThe words \u201c lawful charges,\u201d as used in sec. 2697 Gantt\u2019s Digest, can not mean clerk\u2019s fees, for he is allowed none, and if he was, the sum paid would go to the clerk, and not be held for the use of the purchaser. As no fees are allowed the clerk, a charge made by him would not be a laio-fal charge. There is no statute allowing the clerk a fee for marking the redemption on the books, nor is there any genera] provision under Avhich he could demand a fee. 32 Ark., Jf5; 35 Ib.,f38; 25 Ark., 235.\nTaxes are \u201c lawful charges.\u201d The State has a lien on the land for them (Gantt\u2019s Digest, 5153; Miller\u2019s Digest, 103), which attaches in October. These taxes the purchaser Avas compelled to pay to avoid penalty, and should have been paid to the clerk for the use of the purchaser.\nThe right of redemption is purely statutory. (Rover Jud. Sales, 906; 1 How., 311.) Where a uew right is given and the mode of enforcing it is also given, such prescribed remedy is exclusive. Brooks ?;. Baxter, 29 Ark.; 13 Barb., 817."
  },
  "file_name": "0230-01",
  "first_page_order": 228,
  "last_page_order": 230
}