Lewis v. Cherry

Hughes, J. (after stating the facts). It appears from the evidence in this case that lots 4, 5 and 6, in block 17, in Garland’s addition to the city of Little Rock, Ark., were sold for the taxes of 1896 and 1897; and the clerk’s record (which is the evidence) of the items and amounts for which the land was offered for sale shows that the lots were sold for taxes, penalty and costs, as follows: Taxes, 1896..................$1.61, and 1897, $i.54=$3.i5 Penalty, 1896..................40, and 1897, -39= -79 Costs, 1896....................85, and 1897, .85= 1.70 The items of cost were: Clerk making list for printer............................$-05 Clerk attending sale......:..............................10 Clerk transferring land to name of purchaser...............10 Printer for advertising.................................25 Collector for making sale...............................10 Certificate of purchase..................................23 Total 85 The taxes of 1896 were extended by Act of 1897, p. 97, so-that the taxes for both years were payable at the same time; therefore there could be only one forfeiture and one sale, and only one set of costs that could legally accrue. The transcript and evidence in the case shows that, while only one sale was made, costs were charged for two sales, because the lots were sold for the taxes of two i^ears. This was unlawful and rendered the sale void. A charge of 25 cents for certificate of purchase as part of the costs of sale, under the act of 1883 [Acts 1883, p. 230], rendered the sale void, according to Goodrun v. Ayers, 56 Ark. 97. But under the Act of 1893 [Acts 1893, p. 230], 25 cents as-charge of costs for which the land might he sold was lawful, as-held in Trimble v. Allen-West Commission Co., ante, p. 72. The charge of 10 cents for the clerk transferring the land to the name of the purchaser was proper, according to Salinger v. Gunn, 61 Ark. 414. In the case at bar, the lots having been sold for double costs-—that is, for costs of two sales instead of one, when only one was made — the sale was void, and the deed of the defendant Lewis, made in pursuance of said sale, conferred no title upon him. The decree of the chancery court is affirmed.