TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Winn v. Little Rock

Winn v. Little Rock, 262 S.W. 988 (Ark. 1924)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Arkansas · State Highest Courts
Decided
June 9, 1924
Judges
Wood
Citations
262 S.W. 988165 Ark. 111924 Ark. LEXIS 452

Opinion of the Court — Wood

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Wood, J. This is an action by the appellee against the appellant in ejectment to recover the possession of a certain tract of land, which is described in the complaint, containing 14.59 acres, more or less, and a part of Oakland Cemetery, to which appellee cleraigns title through various mesne conveyances from the United States Grovernment, as set up in its complaint. The appellee alleges that it is a city of the first class, and is legally holding the tract described exclusively for public purposes, to-wit, a public cemetery for burial of the dead. The appellee further alleges that the appellant was in possession of the land without any vestige of .right, title or claim, and wrongfully refuses to surrender the possession thereof to the appellee.

The appellant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the appellant was in possession of the lands under a tax. title, and that the appellee had not complied with the statute requiring it to file an affidavit of tender of taxes before the commencement of its action. The appellant did not file any answer to the complaint. The court overruled his motion, and appellant stood upon the motion. The court rendered judgment in favor of appellee ag-ainst the appellant, from which is this appeal.

Under article 16, § 5, of our Constitution, cemeteries used exclusively as such are exempt from taxation. If the land in controversy whs assessed and sold for taxes, as appellant claims, then such proceeding was null and void, and the appellant acquired no right thereunder. Section 3708 of Crawford & Moses’ Digest, upon which appellant relies to sustain his motion, does not extend to sales that are void for want of power. Wallace v. Brown, 22 Ark. 118 ; Hunt v. Curry, 37 Ark. 100 ; Kelso v. Robinson, 51 Ark. 397 ; see also 37 Cyc. 1469 (b); 26 E. C. L. § 399, p. 443.

The judgment is correct, and it is therefore affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1925: 11930: 11939: 11940: 11943: 11944: 11945: 11948: 119252026peak 1925 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Leavy v. Word185 S.W.2d 708 (Ark. 1945)
  2. Lumsden v. Erstine172 S.W.2d 409 (Ark. 1943)
  3. Duncan v. Board of Dir. of Newport Levee Dist.178 S.W.2d 660 (Ark. 1944)
  4. Smart v. Alexander144 S.W.2d 25 (Ark. 1940)
  5. Chronister v. Skidmore129 S.W.2d 608 (Ark. 1939)
  6. Ponder v. Richardson210 S.W.2d 316 (Ark. 1948)

Most recent

  1. Ponder v. Richardson210 S.W.2d 316 (Ark. 1948)
  2. Leavy v. Word185 S.W.2d 708 (Ark. 1945)
  3. Duncan v. Board of Dir. of Newport Levee Dist.178 S.W.2d 660 (Ark. 1944)
  4. Lumsden v. Erstine172 S.W.2d 409 (Ark. 1943)
  5. Smart v. Alexander144 S.W.2d 25 (Ark. 1940)
  6. Chronister v. Skidmore129 S.W.2d 608 (Ark. 1939)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 3

DepthCaseCited by
Wallace v. Brown, 22 Ark. 118 (1860) 15
Kelso v. Robertson, 51 Ark. 397 (1888) 9
Hunt v. Curry, 37 Ark. 100 (1881) 4

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list