Grayson v. Richardson
Mississippi Supreme Court
Appeal from the Chancery Court of Coahoma County. Hon. W. R. Trigg, Chancellor. Nicholas Grayson exhibited this bill against Mrs. M. E. Richardson and others, asking that his tax title to a certain tract of land be confirmed. On the trial the complainant introduced in evidence a list of the lands sold to the State in 1882, for the unpaid taxes of 1881, embracing the land in controversy, and a conveyance of the same from the State to himself.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Chancery Court of Coahoma County. Hon. W. R. Trigg, Chancellor. Nicholas Grayson exhibited this bill against Mrs. M. E. Richardson and others, asking that his tax title to a certain tract of land be confirmed. On the trial the complainant introduced in evidence a list of the lands sold to the State in 1882, for the unpaid taxes of 1881, embracing the land in controversy, and a conveyance of the same from the State to himself. The defendants presented certain evidence in relation to the assessment roll of 1879, under which the land was sold for taxes? the import and effect of…
1Opinion of the CourtCooper, C. J.
The list of lands sold for taxes was prima facie evidence that the land in controversy was properly assessed, was delinquent for taxes legally imposed, and was sold according to law.
The first objection taken to the assessment roll that it was not filed with the clerk of the Chancery Court on or before the first Monday in July, 1879, is not supported by the evidence. It is not shown when it was filed, or that it was not filed before that time. The oath of the assessor was not made to the roll until August 20th, and this would indicate that it had not then passed from his possession. But the…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Wolfe v. MurphyMississippi Supreme Court · 1882
- Corburn v. CrittendenMississippi Supreme Court · 1884
- Mills v. ScottMississippi Supreme Court · 1885
3Cited by2 opinions
- Mixon v. ClevengerMississippi Supreme Court · 1896
- Morgan, Robertson & Co. v. BlewittMississippi Supreme Court · 1895