Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

77 Ark. 242

Gavin v. Ashworth

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided December 9, 1905

Supreme Court of Arkansas · decided 1905-12-09

Francis Circuit Court; Hance N. Hutton, Judge; statement by the court. Mrs. Gavin was the owner of land in St. Francis County, Arkansas. In 1895 W. R. Kendrick, as collector for and in behalf of the Board of Directors of the St. Francis Levee District, brought an action in the chancery court of St. Francis County to recover levee taxes alleged to be due on the land.

Relies on Kessinger v. Wilson · Duke v. State · Alexander v. Hardin

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

affirmed · Decided 1905-12-09

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently February 1945

6 state decisions

2019051910192019301940decided

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 →

Riddick, J.,

¶1(after stating the facts.) This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of defendants in an action of ejectment. The evidence showed that the defendants purchased the land at a sale under a valid decree rendered against the land, condemning it to be sold for the payment of levee taxes. The sale was duly confirmed. Afterwards plaintiff attempted to redeem the land by paying the taxes to the commissioner who made the sale, but under the law at'that time she had no right to do so, and this payment to the commissioner did not affect the rights of the defendants. Banks v. Directors of St. Francis Levee District, 56 Ark. 490.

¶2The five-year statute of limitations applicable to judicial sales commenced to run so soon as the sale was confirmed; and, as more than five years elapsed from that time before the action of plaintiff was commenced, her right of action was barred. Kessinger v. Wilson, 53 Ark. 400.

¶3The fact that the deed to defendants was made by one who had no right to make it amounts to nothing here, for defendants had, by virtue of their purchase and confirmation thereof, the equitable title with the right to the legal title, which made a good defense to the action of ejectment. Alexander v. Hardin, 54 Ark. 480.

¶4Judgment affirmed.

/77/ark/242 · .json · Public domain