Boehm v. Botsford

52 Ark. 400
Supreme Court of Arkansas·Decided November 15, 1889·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

tax Sales. All inquiry as to the validity of the plaintiff's tax title was cut off by the decree of confirmation of the tax sale under which their title was acquired. Wallace v. Brown, 22 Ark., 118; Buckingham v. Hallett, 24 Ark., 519; McCarter v. Neil, 50 ib., 188.

The court adjudged the defendant’s subsequent tax title invalid upon proof which has not been brought upon the record, and we cannot inquire into the correctness of the finding.

Affirm.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Boehm v. Botsford, 52 Ark. 400 (Ark. 1889).

52 Ark. 400 (Boehm v. Botsford) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Plant v. Johnson
185 S.W.2d 711 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1945)
Lumsden v. Erstine
172 S.W.2d 409 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1943)
Commercial Nat'l Bank, Trustee v. Cole Building
138 S.W.2d 794 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1940)
Porter v. Dooley
49 S.W. 1083 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1898)
Mack v. Johnson
27 S.W. 231 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1894)