Nevada County v. Dickey

56 S.W. 779, 68 Ark. 160, 1900 Ark. LEXIS 15
Supreme Court of Arkansas·Decided April 28, 1900·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Hughes, J.,

(after stating the facts.) We find no provision in our statute authorizing the county to refund the purchase money of lands sold by the state, the title to whieh has failed by reason of the fact that the land was forfeited to the state upon an assessment of it for taxation whieh was void. Sections 6700, 6701, Sand. & H. Dig., do not apply to this case. The state did not warrant the title, and gave only a quitclaim deed to The land. Section 4569, San dels & Hill’s Digest, same as section 4246 Mansfield’s Digest, referred to in the ease of Scott v. Mills, 49 Ark. 275.

Under a quitclaim deed a grantee cannot recover the purchase money, upon failure of title. 3 Kerr on Real Property, p. 322. It is sometimes thought that in such case the grantee has or should have strong equities to have his purchase mon-ry money refunded. While this may be so, there is no provision of law allowing it. Counties have been said to be “quasi corporations possessing no power and incurring no obligations save those especially conferred or imposed by statute.” Granger v. Pulaski County, 26 Ark. 39.

The judgment of the circuit court is reversed, and the action is dismissed.

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

Nevada County v. Dickey, 56 S.W. 779, 68 Ark. 160, 1900 Ark. LEXIS 15 (Ark. 1900).

56 S.W. 779 (Nevada County v. Dickey) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Cook v. Panich
33 S.W.2d 377 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1930)
Scott County v. Advance-Rumley Thresher Co.
288 F. 739 (Eighth Circuit, 1923)
Pine Bluff Transfer Co. v. Nichol
215 S.W. 579 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1919)
Craig v. Greenwood District
121 S.W. 280 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1909)