Morrow v. James

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Morrow v. James

64 S.W. 269, 69 Ark. 539, 1901 Ark. LEXIS 107

CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas

DecidedJuly 13, 1901

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 64 S.W. 269 (Morrow v. James) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Morrow v. James, 64 S.W. 269, 69 Ark. 539, 1901 Ark. LEXIS 107 (Ark. 1901).

Pincite

Opinion

Hugiijes, J.,

(after stating the facts). We are of the opinion that there is no sufficient evidence to show that appellant had ratified and confirmed the sale of her interest in the land in controversy by Olmstead, her guardian. We think that the record shows that appellee undertook and was obliged to redeem the land from taxes, and could not therefore set up the tax purchase in bar of plaintiff’s right of action. ■

Before the statute of limitations of five years could apply, there must have been confirmation of the sale made under the order of the probate court. Without confirmation, there was no sale. Maxwell v. Campbell, 45 Ind. 360; Titman v. Bicker, 43 N. J. Eq. 122; Mulford v. Beveridge, 78 Ill. 455; McVey v. McVey, 51 Mo. 406; Waits v. Cook, 24 Kan. 278; Flemming v. Roberts, 84 U. C. 432; Wells v. Rice, 34 Ark. 346; and Arkansas eases passim. It appears that no report of the sale was made by the guardian; that about four years after the sale Stephen James, the purchaser, presented to the court the two deeds made to him by the guardian, and asked their approval; and that the deeds were approved by order of the probate court. Neither the guardian of appellant nor appellant herself was present, or was represented in the court at the time, as the record shows. Wherefore there was no confirmation of the sale, and therefore no sale. The statute of limitations of five years could not apply, because there was no sale. Mississippi Morris, appellant’s mother, had a life estate in these lands, and she died in November, 1885. This suit was brought to the July term of the court for 1889, about three years and eight months after the death of appellant’s mother, when the right of appellant accrued, the life estate being then determined. It follows, therefore, that the seven years’ statute of limitations had not barred the appellant’s right of action when her suit was commenced. The judgment of the lower court is reversed, and the cause is remanded for a new trial. The appellee should be allowed for any amount he paid to redeem the land from taxes.

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

Hugiijes, J.,

(after stating the facts). We are of the opinion that there is no sufficient evidence to show that appellant had ratified and confirmed the sale of her interest in the land in controversy by Olmstead, her guardian. We think that the record shows that appellee undertook and was obliged to redeem the land from taxes, and could not therefore set up the tax purchase in bar of plaintiff’s right of action. ■

Before the statute of limitations of five years could apply, there must have been confirmation of the sale made under the order of the probate court. Without confirmation, there was no sale. Maxwell v. Campbell, 45 Ind. 360; Titman v. Bicker, 43 N. J. Eq. 122; Mulford v. Beveridge, 78 Ill. 455; McVey v. McVey, 51 Mo. 406; Waits v. Cook, 24 Kan. 278; Flemming v. Roberts, 84 U. C. 432; Wells v. Rice, 34 Ark. 346; and Arkansas eases passim. It appears that no report of the sale was made by the guardian; that about four years after the sale Stephen James, the purchaser, presented to the court the two deeds made to him by the guardian, and asked their approval; and that the deeds were approved by order of the probate court. Neither the guardian of appellant nor appellant herself was present, or was represented in the court at the time, as the record shows. Wherefore there was no confirmation of the sale, and therefore no sale. The statute of limitations of five years could not apply, because there was no sale. Mississippi Morris, appellant’s mother, had a life estate in these lands, and she died in November, 1885. This suit was brought to the July term of the court for 1889, about three years and eight months after the death of appellant’s mother, when the right of appellant accrued, the life estate being then determined. It follows, therefore, that the seven years’ statute of limitations had not barred the appellant’s right of action when her suit was commenced. The judgment of the lower court is reversed, and the cause is remanded for a new trial. The appellee should be allowed for any amount he paid to redeem the land from taxes.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

64 S.W. 269, 69 Ark. 539, 1901 Ark. LEXIS 107, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morrow-v-james-ark-1901.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack