{
  "id": 1529009,
  "name": "Doniphan Lumber Company v. Reid",
  "name_abbreviation": "Doniphan Lumber Co. v. Reid",
  "decision_date": "1907-02-18",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "31",
  "last_page": "33",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "82 Ark. 31"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "76 Ark. 450",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1500959
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/76/0450-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 244,
    "char_count": 3790,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.688,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.744153471229738e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4946830877012521
    },
    "sha256": "b00142ac2454c99f71f91bd9afc47c5a70c9ca76ccebbd8494fe2e8263cda680",
    "simhash": "1:468584ad432865c8",
    "word_count": 659
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:52:32.340981+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Doniphan Lumber Company v. Reid."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Wood, J.,\n(after stating the facts.) The court erred in finding that the county tax of $1.12 for which the land was sold exceeded the constitutional limit, and in cancelling appellant\u2019s deeds for that reason. Sec. 9, art. 16, Const. 1874, provides: \u201cNo county shall levy a tax to exceed one half of one per cent, for all purposes, but may levy an additional one half of one per cent, to pay indebtedness existing at the ratification of this Constitution.\u201d The burden was upon appellees. Cracraft v. Meyer, 76 Ark. 450. They did not sustain it by merely showing that the land was assessed at $160, and was taxed for county purposes $1.12, and sold for such sum. A part of that tax may have been for old indebtedness. The presumption is that the officers did their duty, and did not sell the lands for an illegal exaction, Cracraft v. Meyer, supra. There is nothing in the record to overcome this presumption. The proof falls short of it.\nThe other defects alleged in the complaint to avoid appellant\u2019s deeds, we assume, were abandoned, as no proof was offered' to sustain them.\nThe decree for the error indicated is reversed, and the cause is remanded with directions to enter a decree dismissing appellees\u2019 complaint for want of equity.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Wood, J.,"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "/. H. Harrod, for appellant.",
      "W. L,. Thompson, for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Doniphan Lumber Company v. Reid.\nOpinion delivered February 18, 1907.\n1. Tax titee \u2014 presumption.\u2014A deed of forfeited land executed by the State Land Commissioner is prima facie valid. (Page 33.)\n2. Same \u2014 presumption as to county tax. \u2014 As a county, under Const. 1874 art. 16, \u00a7 9, may levy a county tax not to exceed five mills for county purposes, and an additional tax of five mills to pay indebtedness existing at the ratification of the Constitution, a tax forfeiture for a county tax not exceeding ten mills will be presumed to be valid. (Page 33.)\nAppeal from Cleburne Chancery Court; George T. Humphries, Chancellor;\nreversed.\nSTATEMENT BY THE COURT.\nThis suit was brought by appellees, the only heirs of E. O. Reid, to quiet title to a tract of land in Cleburne County. The appellees in their complaint deraigned title from the United States to one Fuller, from Fuller to Barnard, and from Barnard to E. O. Reid, the ancestor of appellees. They alleged that appellant claimed title by virtue of a sale of the land for the taxes of 1874 and 1875, and alleged that the sale and deed thereunder were void for various reasons, one of them being \u201cthat county taxes ex-ce\u00e9ding the constitutional limit\u201d for 1875 was charged against the land, and for which the land was forfeited and sold.\nThe appellant claimed title from the State to one Ward, and from Ward to appellant; denied appellees\u2019 title; set up that appellees were barred by laches and limitations; exhibited its deeds from the State to Ward and from Ward to appellant, also certified copies of the record pertaining to the forfeiture and sale of the land for taxes of 1873, 1874 and 1875, when the land was in Independence County before Cleburne was created, when the land became a part of Cleburne.\nAppellant asked that appellees\u2019 complaint be dismissed for want of equity, and that its own title be quieted and for general relief, etc.\nA certified record was introduced, showing that the land was sold for the taxes of 1875, that the value was $160, and that the amount of the county taxes for which it sold was $1.12.\nThe cause was submitted on the complaint and- exhibits, demurrer, exceptions, answer and exhibits, and the certificate from the county clerk of Independence County. The court found that the county tax for 1875, for which the land was sold, was in excess of the constitutional limit for such purpose, and cancelled the deed from the State to Ward and from Ward to the defendant, and the defendant appealed.\n/. H. Harrod, for appellant.\nW. L,. Thompson, for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0031-01",
  "first_page_order": 51,
  "last_page_order": 53
}