Hare v. Carnall
Supreme Court of Arkansas
APPEAL from Sebastian Circuit Court. Hon. J. H. Rogers, Circuit Judge. 1. The suit was premature. C. F. B. Co. v. Parks, 32 Ark., 152. 2. Plaintiffs did not put themselves in a position to receive any benefit from the omission of the collector to attend at Port Smith (Cooley on Taxation, 216), and no injury resulted to them. They had ample opportunity to pay the taxes, but failed.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from Sebastian Circuit Court. Hon. J. H. Rogers, Circuit Judge. 1. The suit was premature. C. F. B. Co. v. Parks, 32 Ark., 152. 2. Plaintiffs did not put themselves in a position to receive any benefit from the omission of the collector to attend at Port Smith (Cooley on Taxation, 216), and no injury resulted to them. They had ample opportunity to pay the taxes, but failed. They had two years to redeem (sec. 17, act of March 5, 1875; sec. 5197 Gantt’s Digest), and “when certain number of days are required to intervene between two acts, the day of one only of the acts may be counted.”…
1Opinion of the CourtEakin, J.
Complainants, Carnall, and Lizzie Grimes, owners of certain lands which had been sold in 1878, for delinquent taxes of 1877, filed this bill before the time for redemption had expired. The assessment, listing and sale of the lands had been regular, save that neither the collector nor his deputy, after visiting the different townships, had attended at the county site at Fort Smith, in which district the lands lie, to receive taxes, until the twentieth day of April, as required by section 5105 of Gantt’s Digest.
i.g tax Deputy purchase?7
It is also alleged that John Hare, who purchased the lands,…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Moon v. Georgia State Savings AssociationSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1940
- Seldon v. Dudley E. Jones Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1909
- Lea v. LewisSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1934
- Burgett v. McCraySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1896
- Lamb v. FarrellUnited States Circuit Court · 1884
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.