McGuire v. Union Investment Co.
Mississippi Supreme Court
From the chancery court of Bolivar county. Hon. A. H. Longino, Chancellor. The appellants, McGuire and others, were complainants m the court below. The Union Investment Company and others, appellees, were defendants there. The object of the suit was to confirm complainants’ tax title and to cancel’ the claims of defendants to the land as clouds upon the title. The answers set up -the defects in the assessment under which the tax sale was made, as shown in the opinion.
Read the full summary
From the chancery court of Bolivar county. Hon. A. H. Longino, Chancellor. The appellants, McGuire and others, were complainants m the court below. The Union Investment Company and others, appellees, were defendants there. The object of the suit was to confirm complainants’ tax title and to cancel’ the claims of defendants to the land as clouds upon the title. The answers set up -the defects in the assessment under which the tax sale was made, as shown in the opinion. The decree of the court below adjudged the complainants’ title void, dismissed the bill, but taxed defendants with the costs.…
1Opinion of the CourtWoods, C. J.
“The failure of the assessor to certify and swear to his assessment roll, or to return it on the day named for its return, shall not affect the validity of the assessment, if approved by the board of supervisors or by operation of law,” is the language of § 3783, code of 1892. Under this section, it is contended, for appellant, that the failure to file the roll on or before the first Monday in July, 1892, and the further failure to file the roll on the first Monday in August of the same year, and a filing on August 17, under an order made by the board of supervisors allowing the assessor…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Hunter v. BennettMississippi Supreme Court · 1928
- Cameron v. WhittingtonMississippi Supreme Court · 1919
- Smythe v. WhiteheadMississippi Supreme Court · 1923
- Seals v. PerkinsMississippi Supreme Court · 1910
- Herndon v. MayfieldMississippi Supreme Court · 1901