State of Arizona v. Boyd

138 P.2d 284, 60 Ariz. 388, 1943 Ariz. LEXIS 103
CourtArizona Supreme Court
DecidedJune 1, 1943
DocketCivil No. 4603.
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 138 P.2d 284 (State of Arizona v. Boyd) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Arizona Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State of Arizona v. Boyd, 138 P.2d 284, 60 Ariz. 388, 1943 Ariz. LEXIS 103 (Ark. 1943).

Opinion

McALISTER, C. J.

This is an action by Josephine P. Boyd, and Josephine P. Boyd, guardian ad litem for George Albert Boyd, an incompetent person, against the State of Arizona, Sidney P. Osborn, Joe Hunt, Ana Prohmiller, Joe Conway and Dan E. Garvey, constituting the State Land Department, and O. C. Williams, State Land Commissioner, seeking an order construing patent No. 2560, for grant “S.L. ” land, issued by Sidney P. Osborn, Governor of the State of Arizona, and countersigned by Harry M. Moore, Secretary of State of Arizona, and decreeing the same to be a valid conveyance of the land therein described to George Albert Boyd and establishing a good title to the lands in him and Josephine P. Boyd, his wife. The land is described as follows:

“Tract No. Twenty-four (24); a subdivision of Section 16, Township 1 North, Range 4 East; G. & S. R. B. & M., as the same is plated and recorded in the office of the County Recorder of Maricopa County, Arizona, Book 23, at Page 48 thereof, less East Three Hundred (300) feet excepting and reserving unto the United States rights of way for canals and ditches constructed by their authority, containing 4.82 acres more or less;”

On May 31, 1938, George Albert Boyd applied for appraisement of this land and three appraisers were appointed. They appraised it at $482, and the improvements, consisting of house, fence, trees, water, etc., claimed by George Albert Boyd, were appraised at $1,468. This land, together with other lands situate *390 in Maricopa County, Arizona, in Section 5, Township 1 N., Range 2 W.; in Sections 15 and 22, Township 1 N., Range 5 W.; in Section 16, Township 1 N., Range 6 W.; in Section 36, Township 4 N., Range 1 West; in Sections 20 and 21, Township 1 South, Range 2 W.; in Section 16, Township 4 South, Range 8 W.; in Section 8, Township 2 N., Range 4 E.; in Section 36, Township 1 S., Range 3 E.; in Section 33, Township 1 South, Range 7 E.; in Section 16, Township 2 S., Range 6 E., all of the Gila and Salt River Base and Meridian, comprising a total of 2,090.82 acres, was offered for sale and notice thereof, dated August 3, 1938, was numbered .218, and Saturday, the 15th day of October, 1938, at 10 o’clock a. m. at the front door of the court house in the City of Phoenix, County of Maricopa, State of Arizona, was the time and place fixed by such notice for holding the sale.

The notice of sale was published in “The Messenger,” a newspaper of general circulation in Phoenix, the state capital of the State of Arizona, for ten successive weeks, and it was also published for ten successive weeks in the “Gilbert Enterprise,” a newspaper published in Gilbert, Maricopa County, Arizona, of general circulation, nearest the location of the major portion of said land, the first publication appearing on August 5, 1938, and the last on October 7, 1938.

The land above described, 4.82 acres, and only 170 acres of the remainder of all of the lands offered for sale, lie nearest to the Town of Tempe, County of Maricopa, where there is, and was at the dates upon which said notice of sale was published, a newspaper of general circulation. On the 15th day of October, 1938, the sale was had and at such sale George Albert Boyd was the highest and best bidder, $482. Thereupon the State Land Department, by Gus Williams, its sales agent, issued its sales receipt No. 5910, to George Albert Boyd, showing the sale of real estate, *391 as above described to bim for $482. Thereafter the State Land Department, by its duly authorized officers, executed and issued its certificate of purchase, No. 6670, to George Albert Boyd for said real estate and George Albert Boyd, having made payment in full to the State of Arizona, of all purchase money and such interest as may have been due, the State of Arizona issued to him patent No. 2560, conveying the 4.82 acres of land above described.

The sole question presented by this record is whether the procedure followed by the land commissioner in selling the land in question was in accordance with the Enabling Act, the Constitution, and the statutes of the State of Arizona in that the notice was published in the “Gilbert Enterprise” when there was a newspaper of general circulation published in Tempe, Arizona, which is nearer the land.

Section 28 of the Enabling Act provides, among other things, as follows:

“ . . . Said lands shall not be sold or leased, in whole or in part, except to the highest and best bidder at a public auction to be held at the county seat of the county wherein the lands to be affected, or the major portion thereof, shall lie, notice of which public auction shall first have been duly given by advertisement, which shall set forth the nature, time, and place of the transaction to be had, with a full description of the lands to be offered, and be published once each week for not less than ten successive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation published regularly at the state capital, and in the newspaper of the circulation which shall then be regularly published nearest to the location of such lands so offered. ...”
“Every sale, lease, conveyance, or contract of or concerning any of the lands hereby granted or confirmed, or the use thereof or the natural products thereof, not made in substantial conformity with the provisions of this act shall be null and void, any provisions of the constitution or laws of the said state to the contrary notwithstanding. ...”

*392 Section 3, Article X, of the Arizona Constitution, provides:

“ . . . Said lands shall not be sold or leased, in whole or in part, except to the highest and best bidder at a public auction to be held at the county seat of the county wherein the lands to be affected, or the major portion thereof, shall lie, notice of which public auction shall first have been duly given by advertisement, which shall set forth the nature, time, and_ place of the transaction to be had, with a full description of the lands to be offered, and be published once each week for not less than ten successive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation published regularly at the state capital, and in that newspaper of like circulation which shall then be regularly published nearest to the location of such lands so offered .... ”

Sections 11-407 and 11-408, Arizona Code 1939, read as follows:

“11-407. Ordering sale. — Upon receipt of the appraisers’ report, if in his judgment the interests of the state will not be prejudiced by sale of the land, or where the application for purchase was made by the lessee of agricultural land entitled to compensation for improvements on the land appraised, within sixty (60) days after the time for taking an appeal has expired and no appeal is taken, or if an appeal is taken and the decision is against the appellant, within sixty (60) days after the decision is received, the commissioner shall make an order, authorizing the sale of the lands applied for to the highest and best bidder therefor, at a public auction, to be held at the county seat of the county wherein the lands, or the major portion thereof lie, and shall give notice of such sale by advertisement.
“11-408. Advertisement for sale.

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

Related

Foster v. Anable
19 P.3d 630 (Court of Appeals of Arizona, 2001)
Princess Plaza Partners v. State
928 P.2d 638 (Court of Appeals of Arizona, 1996)
Waddell v. Arizona State Land Department
873 P.2d 646 (Court of Appeals of Arizona, 1993)
Bohannan v. Corporation Commission
313 P.2d 379 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1957)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
138 P.2d 284, 60 Ariz. 388, 1943 Ariz. LEXIS 103, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-of-arizona-v-boyd-ariz-1943.