Watson v. Cornish

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Watson v. Cornish

249 S.W.2d 123, 220 Ark. 662, 1952 Ark. LEXIS 769

CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas

DecidedJune 2, 1952

Docket4-9821

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 249 S.W.2d 123 (Watson v. Cornish) 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

Watson v. Cornish, 249 S.W.2d 123, 220 Ark. 662, 1952 Ark. LEXIS 769 (Ark. 1952).

Pincite

Opinion

Griffin Smith, Chief Justice.

Counsel for appellants, with commendable directness, states that the single question is whether a tax sale was valid when the land was described as “Pt. NW 14 of Sec. 15, Twp. 16 S., Range 23 W., containing 60 acres.”

The suit was brought by record owners to quiet title, the contention being that appellants claimed under a clerk’s tax deed. The land was sold in 1947 for 1946 delinquencies. It is shown that for 15 or 20 years the land had been owned by the Cornish family and that it had been assessed as a part of the northwest quarter, as above shown. The Chancellor found that the sale was void for want of an identifying description, but directed that appellants recover $34.22 for taxes, penalties, costs, and interest.

Appellants rely upon tlie fact that the Cotton Belt Railroad runs through the quarter section, hence the area is thought to be fractional. A number of witnesses testified that they knew where the Cornish lands were and the term part was not confusing or indefinite.

A fractional description is good if in fact the designated survey is fractional and the land sold embraces such fraction. See Price v. Price, 207 Ark. 804, 182 S. W. 2d 879. In the opinion Mr. Justice Knox calls attention to numerous decisions “. . . holding that a deed which describes the land as a part of a certain quarter section, or other governmental subdivision, without otherwise describing it, is void.”

Affirmed.

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

Griffin Smith, Chief Justice.

Counsel for appellants, with commendable directness, states that the single question is whether a tax sale was valid when the land was described as “Pt. NW 14 of Sec. 15, Twp. 16 S., Range 23 W., containing 60 acres.”

The suit was brought by record owners to quiet title, the contention being that appellants claimed under a clerk’s tax deed. The land was sold in 1947 for 1946 delinquencies. It is shown that for 15 or 20 years the land had been owned by the Cornish family and that it had been assessed as a part of the northwest quarter, as above shown. The Chancellor found that the sale was void for want of an identifying description, but directed that appellants recover $34.22 for taxes, penalties, costs, and interest.

Appellants rely upon tlie fact that the Cotton Belt Railroad runs through the quarter section, hence the area is thought to be fractional. A number of witnesses testified that they knew where the Cornish lands were and the term part was not confusing or indefinite.

A fractional description is good if in fact the designated survey is fractional and the land sold embraces such fraction. See Price v. Price, 207 Ark. 804, 182 S. W. 2d 879. In the opinion Mr. Justice Knox calls attention to numerous decisions “. . . holding that a deed which describes the land as a part of a certain quarter section, or other governmental subdivision, without otherwise describing it, is void.”

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 S.W.2d 123, 220 Ark. 662, 1952 Ark. LEXIS 769, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/watson-v-cornish-ark-1952.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack