Taylor v. Van Meter

13 S.W. 699, 53 Ark. 204, 1890 Ark. LEXIS 52
Supreme Court of Arkansas·Decided May 3, 1890·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam,

lúa — Mobteion court — M o t i o r for new trial necessary. i. There is a special finding of facts by the court and no motion for a new trial. The sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the finding is, therefore, not presented. Smith v. Hollis, 46 Ark., 17.

2. Tax sales. 3. Tax deed— Meritoiious de2. That a sale for taxes not made on a day appointed by law is void, was ruled in Vernon v. Nelson, 33 Ark., 748. Substantially the same provisions of the statute relied upon by the appellant to cut off this defense were in force when that case was decided. In the subsequent case of Radclijfe v. Scruggs, 46 Ark., 96, it was explained that these provisions of the statute could not now be construed so as to cut off any meritorious defense to a tax deed.

Affirm.

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

Taylor v. Van Meter, 13 S.W. 699, 53 Ark. 204, 1890 Ark. LEXIS 52 (Ark. 1890).

13 S.W. 699 (Taylor v. Van Meter) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Monk v. Merritt
648 S.W.2d 826 (Court of Appeals of Arkansas, 1983)
Johnson v. Johnson
183 S.W.2d 783 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1944)
Cecil v. Tisher and Friend
178 S.W.2d 655 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1944)
Pride v. Gist
238 S.W. 35 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1922)
Hewett v. Ozark White Lime Co.
180 S.W. 199 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1915)
Belcher v. Harr
126 S.W. 714 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1910)
Ross v. Royal
91 S.W. 178 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1905)