Staley v. Leomans

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Staley v. Leomans

14 S.W. 646, 53 Ark. 428, 1890 Ark. LEXIS 119

CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas

DecidedOctober 18, 1890

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 14 S.W. 646 (Staley v. Leomans) 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

Staley v. Leomans, 14 S.W. 646, 53 Ark. 428, 1890 Ark. LEXIS 119 (Ark. 1890).

Pincite

Opinion

COCKRILL, C. J.

i. Tax-purchase 'by claimant un'der prior void tax The defendants were the owners and

in possession of the land in suit enjoying the rents and profits when the land was assessed and sold for non-payment of taxes. It was their duty therefore to the State and to adverse claimants of the title to pay the taxes. Guynn v. McCauley, 32 Ark., 97, and cases cited. The plaintiffs were out of possession claiming title under tax deeds void on their face. They were under no legal obligations to the State or the defendants to pay the taxes. Nor did the naked fact that the lands had been assessed to them change their position. Pleasants v. Scott, 21 Ark., 371. As there is nothing in the relationship of the parties upon which an estoppel can be raised, and no question of public policy is contravened, they should be allowed to retain whatever advantage they may have gained by the purchase. Cooley, Tax. (2d ed.), p. 506 etseq.; Black, Tax Titles, sec. 148.

2. Levy of •taxes— Irregular return of school The only objection urged here against the deed is answered in favor of its validity in Holland v. Davies, 36 Ark., 446.

Reverse and remand for a new trial.

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

COCKRILL, C. J.

i. Tax-purchase 'by claimant un'der prior void tax The defendants were the owners and

in possession of the land in suit enjoying the rents and profits when the land was assessed and sold for non-payment of taxes. It was their duty therefore to the State and to adverse claimants of the title to pay the taxes. Guynn v. McCauley, 32 Ark., 97, and cases cited. The plaintiffs were out of possession claiming title under tax deeds void on their face. They were under no legal obligations to the State or the defendants to pay the taxes. Nor did the naked fact that the lands had been assessed to them change their position. Pleasants v. Scott, 21 Ark., 371. As there is nothing in the relationship of the parties upon which an estoppel can be raised, and no question of public policy is contravened, they should be allowed to retain whatever advantage they may have gained by the purchase. Cooley, Tax. (2d ed.), p. 506 etseq.; Black, Tax Titles, sec. 148.

2. Levy of •taxes— Irregular return of school The only objection urged here against the deed is answered in favor of its validity in Holland v. Davies, 36 Ark., 446.

Reverse and remand for a new trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

14 S.W. 646, 53 Ark. 428, 1890 Ark. LEXIS 119, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/staley-v-leomans-ark-1890.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack