Neal v. Wideman
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Cleburne Circuit Court. Joseph W. Martin, Judge. 1. The forfeiture to the State being legal, there could be no subsequent forfeiture or sale for taxes. 31 Ark. 245. 2. An after-acquired title by the State passed to • her grantee. Mausf. Dig. sec. 652; 33 Ark. 251; 15 id. 73. 3. In this case there were no overdue or back taxes. Freem.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Cleburne Circuit Court. Joseph W. Martin, Judge. 1. The forfeiture to the State being legal, there could be no subsequent forfeiture or sale for taxes. 31 Ark. 245. 2. An after-acquired title by the State passed to • her grantee. Mausf. Dig. sec. 652; 33 Ark. 251; 15 id. 73. 3. In this case there were no overdue or back taxes. Freem. Judg. 125, and cases cited; 21 Ark. 145. 4. No one is bound by any judicial proceeding to which he is not a party, and he cannot be made a party unless an opportunity has been offered of defending himself. 2 Ark. 60 ; ib. 390. 5. No title passed to…
1Opinion of the CourtBaTTEE, J.
On the 29th of January, 1889, J. W. Wideman commenced this action against James M. Neal for the recovery of a tract of land described in his complaint. He derived his title from a sale of the land for the taxes of 1876 under a decree rendered by the Cleburne circuit court, in the exercise of the jurisdiction conferred upon it by the “Overdue Tax Daw.” At that sale the land was stricken off to the State, there being no bidders for it; and, no redemption having been effected within the time prescribed by law, the State Land Commissioner sold and conveyed it to the plaintiff.
The defendant…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Johnson v. ColemanWisconsin Supreme Court · 1868
- Miles v. JonesSupreme Court of Missouri · 1859
- Peel v. JanuarySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1880
- Neal v. AndrewsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1890
3Cited by1 opinion
- Allen v. PhillipsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1908