Taylor v. Van Meter

Decided May 3, 1890

Supreme Court of Arkansas · decided 1890-05-03

J. E. Riddick, Judge. There was no evidence showing when the sale commenced, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary it will be presumed to have commenced on the proper day. Black on Tax Titles, sec. 93; 36 Wis., 308; 37 Iowa, 68. The collector had the right to adjourn the sale from day to day. Acts 1883, p. 266, sec. 129. But if the sale was made on a day not provided by law it was cured by sec. 154, Rev. Act, 1883. 62 Miss., 433. 1.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1890-05-03

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently April 1983

7 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Per Curiam,

¶1lúa — Mobteion court — M o t i o r for new trial necessary. i. There is a special finding of facts by the court and no motion for a new trial. The sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the finding is, therefore, not presented. Smith v. Hollis, 46 Ark., 17.

¶22. Tax sales. 3. Tax deed— Meritoiious de2. That a sale for taxes not made on a day appointed by law is void, was ruled in Vernon v. Nelson, 33 Ark., 748. Substantially the same provisions of the statute relied upon by the appellant to cut off this defense were in force when that case was decided. In the subsequent case of Radclijfe v. Scruggs, 46 Ark., 96, it was explained that these provisions of the statute could not now be construed so as to cut off any meritorious defense to a tax deed.

¶3Affirm.