Porter v. Tallman
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Arkansas Chancery Court. James F. Robinson, Chancellor. STATEMENT BY THE COURT. Elliott Tallman brought this action in equity to review and set aside a decree confirming a tax title for error apparent upon the record.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Arkansas Chancery Court. James F. Robinson, Chancellor. STATEMENT BY THE COURT. Elliott Tallman brought this action in equity to review and set aside a decree confirming a tax title for error apparent upon the record. He alleged that he was the owner of the land embraced in the tax deed, that the sale upon which the deed was based was irregular, and the deed void, aud that the decree of confirmation was erroneous for the following reasons apparent upon the record: (1) Because there was no sufficient affidavit of the publication of the notice of proceedings to confirm. (2) Because…
1Opinion of the Court
Riddick, J.,
(after stating the facts.) ■ There are only two questions presented by this appeal. The first relates to the sufficiency of the affidavit showing the publication of the notice of the proceeding to confirm the tax title of Porter. It is said that this affidavit purports to have been made by the publisher of the paper, instead of by the editor or proprietor, as required by the statute. But the publication may have been proved in some other way than by the affidavit mentioned. The decree of confirmation recites a finding by the court that the petitioner had given due and legal notice…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Porter v. DooleySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1898
3Cited by7 opinions
- Pattison v. SmithSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1910
- Livingston v. New England Mortgage Security Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1906
- Turley v. OwenSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1934
- Price v. GunnSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1914
- Palmer v. Ozark Land Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1905
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.