Pattison v. Harvey
Mississippi Supreme Court
From the chancery court of Tallahatchie county. Hon. A. MoC. Kimbrough, Chancellor. The appellant, Pattison, was complainant, and the appellee, Harvey, was defendant in the court below.
Read the full summary
From the chancery court of Tallahatchie county. Hon. A. MoC. Kimbrough, Chancellor. The appellant, Pattison, was complainant, and the appellee, Harvey, was defendant in the court below. The appellant filed his bill of complaint for confirmation of his tax title to east of northeast \ of section 5, township 26, range 2, east, in Tallahatchie county, which had been purchased by him at a sale thereof for the taxes of 1897, on the first Monday in March, 1898. The answer of the appellee denied the validity of the title set up in the hill? and, on the trial, the court below, on the objection of the…
1Opinion of the CourtOalhoon, J.
The tax collector used the old form of conveyance, prescribed by § 525 of the code of 1880, instead of that prescribed by § 3817 of the code of 1892, and omitted to give the name of the person to whom the land was assessed. If the conveyance had failed to recite that the sale was made for taxes assessed, which seems to us essential, a very much more serious question would be before us. But it does this, reciting that the sale was made ‘ ‘ for the taxes assessed thereon for the year of 1897.” The only point in this record, therefore, is whether the omission of the name invalidates the…
2Cited by2 opinions
- C & D INV. CO. v. Gulf Transport Co.Mississippi Supreme Court · 1988
- Stark v. StarkMississippi Supreme Court · 1971