{ "id": 1326154, "name": "Muskegon Lumber Co. v. Myers", "name_abbreviation": "Muskegon Lumber Co. v. Myers", "decision_date": "1892-05-16", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "199", "last_page": "201", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "56 Ark. 199" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "29 Mich. 69", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mich.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "2 Pa. St. 22", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Pa.", "case_ids": [ 951101 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/pa/2/0022-01" ] }, { "cite": "20 Mich. 27", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mich.", "case_ids": [ 1939960 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/mich/20/0027-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 307, "char_count": 4918, "ocr_confidence": 0.535, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.995174964792231e-08, "percentile": 0.3131858266640256 }, "sha256": "6e588768f7d54fab4cf3e85fad6359b6b52871150d85506bdc004e27fb259256", "simhash": "1:4f5490328cd08260", "word_count": 860 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:23:39.429633+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Muskegon Lumber Co. v. Myers." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Cockriee, C. J.\nOnly the shell of this controversy remains \u2014 the merits have been resolved in favor of the appellant by the legislature, pending this appeal.\nThe lands in suit had been sold to the State under a decree rendered in pursuance of the act of March 12, 1881, known as the overdue tax law. They were subsequently placed upon the tax books as though there had been no acquisition of title by the State', and were sold by the collector, as the lands of the former owners, for the unpaid taxes of previous years, including those the non-payment of which was the foundation of the decree under which the State acquired title. Within two years from the date of the collector\u2019s last sale, the former owners of the lands paid to the county treasurer the amounts that would have been required to redeem the lands from tax sales under the law applicable to redemption from collector\u2019s sales.\nThe appellant is the vendee of the former owners. It filed its complaint against the State and county officers to restrain them from selling the lands or doing other acts that would cast a cloud upon its title, and prayed that its title be quieted against all claims. The court dismissed the complaint and adjudged the costs against the appellant.\nPending the appeal the legislature passed an act, the effect of which is that the State relinquishes all claim of title to lands acquired by the State under the overdue tax law, where the officers have proceeded and the taxes have been paid, as was done in reference to these lands, and directs the land commissioner to withhold such land from sale. Acts 1891, ch. 68, p. 125.\nAs the State\u2019s only claim of title comes through the overdue tax decree, the appellant\u2019s lands fall within the very letter of the act last mentioned, so that, by the concessions of the State through the legislature, the prayer of the appellant\u2019s complaint is practically granted. It Is useless therefore to consider any question relating to the appellant\u2019s title. The costs only are involved ; and conceding, without deciding, that suit could be maintained against the State\u2019s officers for either of the purposes indicated in the complaint, we think the costs were rightly adjudged against the appellant for the following reasons, viz : the full amount due to the State for redemption under the act of February 15,1887, (Acts 1887, ch. 13, p. 13), upon which the appellant based its action, has not been paid, nor does the appellant offer to pay it.\nThe act. requires the owner who desires to redeem his land, which has been purchased by the State under an overdue tax degree, to pay the attorney\u2019s fee incurred in foreclosing the tax lien as part of the costs of redemption. It is conceded that the State paid the attorney\u2019s fee foy foreclosing the lien on these lands, and that there has been no offer by the land owner to repay.\nIf therefore it be conceded that the payment to the county treasurer to the full amount' necessary to effect a redemption was equivalent to payment to the land commissioner, who alone was authorized to receive the redemption money under the act of 1887, the appellant would take nothing. Because if it can be held, as the appellant contends, that the State is estopped to deny the legality of the acts of the county officers, equity would not aid the complainant to enforce the estoppel until it does equity by offering to pay what it should have paid to perfect the right it seeks to enforce.\nWithout prejudice to the appellant\u2019s rights under the act of 1891, above referred to, the decree is affirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Cockriee, C. J." } ], "attorneys": [ "A. M. Dueeie, Judge.", "John B. Jones and E. W. Kimball for appellant.-", "W. E. Atkinson, Attorney General, for appellees." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Muskegon Lumber Co. v. Myers.\nOpinion delivered May 16, 1892.\nOverdue tax sale \u2014 Redemption\u2014Costs.\nWhere the owner of land brings suit against the land commissioner, under act of 1887, ch. 13, to quiet his title to land sold to the State in an overdue tax suit, alleging that he paid the taxes and penalty to the county treasurer, but without offering to pay the attorney\u2019s fee for foreclosing the State\u2019s lien, he is not entitled to judgment, which would carry the costs, although pending the suit the legislature relinquished the Statens title to the land.\nAppeal from Grant Circuit Court in Chancery.\nA. M. Dueeie, Judge.\nSuit by Muskegon Lumber Co. against C. B. Myers, State Land Commissioner, and J. J. Beavers, clerk of Grant county, to quiet plaintiff\u2019s title to certain land. The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion.\nJohn B. Jones and E. W. Kimball for appellant.-\nSince the passage of the act of March 25, 1891, releasing the claims of the State to these lands, there is no controversy between appellant and the State.\nW. E. Atkinson, Attorney General, for appellees.\nThe decision in this cause was rendered before the passage of the act of March 25, 1891, and the decision, if right then, as it was, should not be reversed. The legislature cannot set aside a judgment or decree. 20 Mich. 27; 2 Pa. St. 22; Cooley\u2019s Const. Paw, p. 112; 29 Mich. 69." }, "file_name": "0199-01", "first_page_order": 221, "last_page_order": 223 }