Chrisman v. Currie

Citations

• 60 Miss. 858

Syllabus

<p>1. Tax-Title. Acquisition thereof by Staie, how alleged. Chancery practice.</p> <p>Where it is necessary to allege in a bill in chancery the State’s acquisition of title to a tract of land sold for taxes, it is an inapt expression to state that the land “ was forfeited to the State; ” but a bill is not demurrable on account of such averment.</p> <p>2. Same. Presumptions annexed to deed. Acts-1872 and 1878 construed.</p> <p>The act of 1872, entitled “An act to quiet tax-titles and increase the revenue of the State,” and the act “supplemental to and amendatory” thereof, approved April 7,1873, constitute parts of one common scheme, the later act repealing nothing in the former except where there is a necessary repugnance. And the prima facie presumptions of the validity of title annexed to the deeds made under sect. 6 of the Act of 1872 attach also to those made under the supplemental act.</p> <p>3. Same. Bill to perfect. Sect. 578, Code 1880, construed.</p> <p>S < (8 of the Code of 1880, authorizing the filing o'f bills to perfect tax-titles applies to every variety and species of such titles.</p> <p>4. Same. Bill for confirmation. Defence of fraud in procuring patent.</p> <p>In a suit to confirm a tax-title, defendants opposing the relief sought cannot litigate the question whether a patent to the land issued by the United States was fraudulently obtained, and might be cancelled, with the view of showing that the land was not liable to taxation when sold for taxes.</p>