Forehand v. Higbee
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Poinsett Chancery Court; Archer Wheatley, Chancellor; 1. The redemption was not valid because the receipt from the treasury was never filed with the clerk. 80 Ark. 43-48; 73 Id. 27; Kirby’s Digest, § § 7099, 7100-2. 2. Appellee failed to pay enough money to redeem. Blackwell on Tax Titles, pages 506-7. 1. rThe treasurer’s receipt was filed within the meaning of the law.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Poinsett Chancery Court; Archer Wheatley, Chancellor; 1. The redemption was not valid because the receipt from the treasury was never filed with the clerk. 80 Ark. 43-48; 73 Id. 27; Kirby’s Digest, § § 7099, 7100-2. 2. Appellee failed to pay enough money to redeem. Blackwell on Tax Titles, pages 506-7. 1. rThe treasurer’s receipt was filed within the meaning of the law. Appellee did all that was required of him and the officer’s failure of duty does not affect his right. 21 Ark. 578; 28 Id. 244; 82 Id. 164; 15 N. É. 712; 3 So. 471; 73 Pac. 1018. 2. The question of the sufficiency…
1Opinion of the Court
HART, J.,
(after stating the facts). The decree of the chancellor was based on the ground that the redemption by Higbee was valid. The validity of the redemption is attacked on two grounds. First, it is claimed that appellee did not pay the amount required by law to redeem, and second, that the receipt from the treasurer was not filed in the office of the county clerk as required by the statute.
It appears from the record that in making out the redemption certificate the deputy county clerk by miscalculation as to the amount of penalty due made it a little over $6.00 less than the true amount…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Martin v. BarbourSupreme Court of the United States · 1891
- Corning Town Co. v. DavisSupreme Court of Iowa · 1876
- Gage v. ScalesIllinois Supreme Court · 1881
- Bettison v. BuddSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1860
- Scroggin v. RidlingSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1909
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.