ARK.] NORTHERN ROAD IMP. DIST. V. MEYERMAN. 383
NORTHERN ROAD IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT V. MEI-ERMAN. Opinion delivered October 5, 1925. 1. HIGHWAYS-COLLECTION OF ROAD DISTRICT TAxEs.—Acts of 1921, p. 296, relating to the collection of road improvement taxes, applies to existing road districts as well as to those subsequently created. 2. HIGHWAYS-SALE OF LAND FOR IMPROVEMENT TAXES-REDEMPTION. —The act of March 23, 1921 (p. 296), shortening the period of redemption prescribed by Acts 1919, p. 1071, from five to two years, is a valid'exercise of legislative power, so far as concerns sales made after passage of the former act. 3. JUDICIAL SALES-RIGHTS OF PURCHASERS.-A purchaser at a judicial sale becomes a party to the proceedings, and is entitled to such assistance from the . court as is necessary to make the orders and decrees of the court effective: Appeal from Arkansas Chancery Court, Northern District; H..R. Lucas, Chancellor; reversed. • Robert E. Holt, and Rose, Hemingway, Cantrell & Loughborough, for appellant. M. F. Elms, for appellee. SMITH, J. Northern Road Improvement District of Arkansas County was created by special act No. 247, passed at the 1919 Session of the General Assembly (acts 1919, page 1071), and included two tracts of land owned by appellee. It was provided in this act that the owner of any lands delinquent for . the non-payment. of taxes might have five years after the sale of the land for the' delinquent taxes in which to redeem from such sale, by paying -the- taxes;- penalty,- interest and costs'. At the 1921 session of the General Assembly, act No. 231 was passed. Acts 1921, page 296. This act was entitled "An act to facilitate the collection of the taxes of Road Improvement Districts," and by •section 1 thereof a procedure was 'provided for enforcing the payment . of delinquent taxes by a ' suit in the chancery court. This procedure contemplated a decree.'finding that the land was delinquent and condemning it to be sold, and that a commissioner should be appointed by the r .:(mirt to make the sale, and that a report of sale should
384 NORTHERN ROAD IMP. DIST. V. MEYERMAN. [169 be made to and approved by the court, after which the commissioner should execute to the . purchaser a deed. After so providing, it was further provided that "the owner of property sold for taxes therein shall have the right to redeem it at any time within two years from the date when his lands have been stricken off by the commissioners making the sale." Appellee failed to pay the taxes which were properly assessed against his lands for the years 1920 and 1921. 8uit was brought to enforce payment of these , taxes under the act of 1921, and there was a decree condemning them to be sold, and, pursuant to this decree, the lands were sold, the sale was reported to and approved by the court, and a deed made to the purchaser. Appellee refused to surrender possession, and the purchaser applied to the court for a writ of' assistance to obtain possession. thereupon appellee brought this suit and alleged in his complaint that his time for redemption had not expired, 'and o he prayed that the sheriff be enjoined from serving the writ of assistance, that the writ be quashed, and that be be allowed to redeem his lands. • Upon the trial from which this appeal comes the court held that the act creating the improvement district 'gave to appellee as landowner therein a vested right to redeem from the decree of sale for taxes at any time within five years, and that he could not be deprived of this right by the act of 1921, and the writ was quashed. . The purchaser has appealed, and the most important question presented is, whether the act of 1921, under which the decree was taken, is void in so far as it amends the act creating the improvement district, which allowed five years for redemption. It is first insisted that it was not the purpose of the Legislature, in enacting the act of 1921, to make it apply to existing districts. But we do not agree with counsel in this ' contention. The act provides that "All taxes levied 'by road improvement districts in this State, whether organized under general or special laws, shall
Alc.] NORTHERN ROAD IMP. DIST. V. MEYERMAN. 385 be payable ; between the first Monday in January and the tenth; . day. April... of each year," and in the 'same. se'c-tion in w-hich the langnago just quoted appears : is found. thel provisibn that the owner of property S'old for taxeS shall havo . the right to redeem at any tiine within two years from the date . of the sale by the commissioners. , The' lanknage of : this 'act appears to be too plain 'to leaVe . any doubt that the Legislature intended -AS prO2 viSions to . apPly to all proceedings to enforce payment of delinquent taxes due the road improvement distriets'; of:this' States , and t& those then in, existence as well as those snbseqnently created: - .! The:next question;to decide is, whether the LegiSla--; titre had' the power . to do what it obviously . intended tO do, that is', shorten :the:period of time . allowed landoWners in which to:redeeni from ;sales for taxes: . - .we 'have said, the court below hold that appellee and all . other dandoWners : in the district created- by the, special act , of ,1919 had; : by : the terms of that aet,*d vested' right to redeem . any lands retnrned delinquent and.'sOld at : any. time . within five : years from the date of the sale.. Appellee insists that' the court was correctin this holding, and' that to . hold otherwise would impair the obligation of _the ebntrnct which the act . of 1919 brought into exist, ence, between; the imProvement district and the oN; merS of property; therein, and , would thereby violate the PrO:. Visions of both the,State and Federal Constitutions which' prohibit : the impairment of the obligations . of 'contracts: -this contention:LT-he:— organization of the iMprovement district was' not a; that-1 ter of contract. : It was a proceeding in iniiitun. .It was . an eXercise of the: State's police , power; : and' the Legislature, had the power to provide such proCedure as • 'enforce the payment. of 'delinqnent it saw proper to taxes, 'and the : granting of the right : of; redemption from a 'sale for; delinquent ;taxes' was A, mafter of grace, which might . have_ been withheld: • , ' The a'a of 1921 became -a law on March 3, 1921, and the decree : of sale:of appellee's : ;lands Was rendered pnr----
386 NORTHERN ROAD IMP. DIST. V. MEYERMAN. [169 suant to its provisions, and the sale occurred in June following, and the act proyided that the . right of redemption might be exercised at -any time within two years thereafter. The act did not undertake to shorten the time for redemption after the sale had been made. The contractual rights of. the parties under the sale did not become fixed as such until,the sale by the commissioners had taken place, and therefore these ,rights were governed 'by the law as it existed at the time of the sale. This question was considered 'by this court' in the case of Smith v. Spillman, 135 Ark. 279, where the previous decisions of this court were reviewed, and the court there quoted from the case of Hogg v. Nichols, 134 Ark. 280, the following statement of the law: . "We have examined the authorities carefully and find that the law regards and treats a judicial sale as 'contractual; and the laws of redemption in force at the time of the sale are a condition.attached to the sale. In other Words, the authorities seem practically unanimous in . holding that the right to redeem from a tax sale is goyerned by the statute in force and effect at the time the,sale was made As has been pointed out, there has been no shortening . of the period of redemption since ,the sale. The law then in force has not been changed... That, law gave .a right of redemption for two years, which was not ,exercised. After the sale under this law the contractual rights of the parties thereto attached,. and, as appears, from the decision in Smith v. Spillman, supra, these rights are governed by the law in force at the time of the sale, and we have no discretion in enforcing them.. . The power of the Legislature to amend the act of 1919 by shortening the period of redemption, as was done. by the act of 1921, appears to be certain. In the case of Allen v. Peterson, 80 Pac. 849 ., the Supreme Court of Washington said : " The statute of 1899 (Laws 1899, p. 285, c. 141) in express terms purports to amend the statute of 1897 (Laws 1897, p. 136, c. 71 ) , and no reason is shown, and none is apparent ta us, why
ARK.] NORTHERN ROAD IMP. DIST. V. MEYERMAN. 387 it is not effective as an amendment. Nor did the appellants ha-Vie any vested rights in the remedy provided by the earlier statute. The LegislatUre has power from time to time tO . change the mode of enforcing collection of delinquent.taxes, and maY make such mode operative as to taxes due and delinquent. While, perhaps, it may not arbitrarily cut off a right to redeem that a property-' holder civho is delinquent then has, it may shorten such time, provided it leaves a reasonable time within which to exercise the' privilege. The principle is akin to that of a statute Which prescribes a limitation for bringing actions where none previously exiSted or shortens those already existing. Either iS valid if a reasonable 'time is given by the . new' law to commence an action before the bar takes effect. Terry v. Anderson, 95 U. S. 628, 2411. Ed. 365; Wheeler v. Jackson, 137 U. S. 245, 11 Sup. Ct.76, 34 L. Ed. 659; Woodham v. Anderson; 32 Wash. 500, 73 Pac. 536; Biggins v. People, 106 Ill. 270; Hosnier V. People, 96 Ill. 58. The amendment in question here did not , arbitrarily cut off the right to redeem, but .only shortened it. It was therefore applicable to' existing delinquent taxes." •The ease:of Baldwin v. Ely,.28 N. W. 392, involved the construction of a taxation statute of the State . of Wisconsin, and the Supreme Court of that State -there said; . "The authority of the Legislature to shorten the tithe for redeeming from some of the. certificates up to two years cannot be seriously questioned, under the numerous decisions of this court ori the subject.'! In the . case of Robinson v. Howe,.13 WiS. 341, the Supreme Court of Wisconsin had previously said: "So far as hiS (the land owner's) right of redemption was concerned, it was not derived from any contract, but was given by-the law only, and the time within which he might exerciSé -it might be shortened by the Legislature, provided a reaSonable,time was Jeft in which to exercise it, Withont impairing-the obligation of any contract. Butler v. Palmer, 1 Hill, 324; Smith v. Packard, decided by this court at the present term (12 Wis. 371). But 'the rights
388 NORTHERN ROAD IMP. DIST. V. MEYERMAN. [169 of the purehaser 'stand upon a different footing. They are derived from the contract, which the law authorized to be made. He contracted at the sale for a deed of the kind which the law then authorized him to contract for. That was an absolute deed at the end of three years, liable to be defeated only by a redemption before it was recorded." . The ease of Keely. v. Sanders, 99 IT. S. 441;- involved the construction of a statute of the State cif Tennessee whereby 'certain taxes were collected by a proceeding in rein, and Justice Strong,'speaking for the . Supreme Court of the United States, there said: • "While it may be admitted that a statutory, right of redemption is to be favorably* regarded, it is nevertheless true that it is a statutory right exclusively, 'and can only be : claimed in the caSes and under the circunistances -- prescribed. Courts cannot extend the time, or. make:any exceptions not made in the statute. Redemptithi cannot . be 'had in equity (Mitchell v. Green, 10 Mete.) (Mass. 101), except as it may be permitted by statute, and then only under sueh'conditions as it may attach." - The question whether the right of redemption from a tax , sale is contractual was considered in the case of Muirhead v. Sands, 69 N. W. 826, and the , Supreme Court of Michigan there said : "It is next contended that, if •the law of 1893 be construed to apply to the taxes' for the year 1891, it hastens the time Of sale of lands delinquent for taxes, and . cuts down the period of redemption provided by the previous law, and is to that eXtent unconstitutional, in that it violates section 1 of article 10 of the COnstitution of the -United States, prohibiting enactments by the State impairing the obligation of contracts, and article 6, section 32, of the 'Cc:institution Of ;Michigan, in that it deprives persons of their property . without due process of law. We think neither of thee positions is tenable. A labored arguMent is made : to , show that the relation between the State' and the owner of the land is a contract relation, for the reason that the taxes assessed became a debt to the township from the person
ARK; NORTHERN R,OAD IMP. DIST. V. MEYERMAN. 389 to, whom . they are assessed.: :But the .,proceeding is essentially. ini:.invitum; ;and the proceeding. on a :sale of land ,is a remedy...for the delinqueney, of, .the •taxpayer. The law..affecting the: remedy is:in Such cases subject to ,amendment, even though the.. time fixed for the. Sale :or redemption be shortened: • 25 Am. & Ehg. Enc. Law; 410; Black,' 'Ta.x Titles,' §. 85'3 ;: Baldidin • v. 'Ely, • 66 Wis. 171, 28 .• I\lt . W. 392 ; , 11 T egus v r • cmcey, 2216wa, 57: Defendaht relies-trPon-Cizrgit v. Poi(76 , , 1 mia: 369, which. 'case pro-deeds upon the:View that the . Period' of redeniPtiOn mOrtgage • sale,:as. fixed by . statilte 'at' 'the 'time the ' Mort-ga. g :e IA* exe6itto;'is t6"13e. deemed a part of . the epgage-'tient 'of the parties No such cOnStrnetion' "can 1Ye Placednpoñ the statute here MidereonSideration...* There . was no agreement between the State' . and the taXpayei'as to the period'nf 'redemption."' Tr' the Case of •ROYers v NiMols 71: N. E. 050 the 'Snpreme Judicial Court , , of , i\fassachnSetts . ., said `Although the , lien'WhiCh attaChes ..t6. real: o.4,:t6, proper assessinent of:taxes. theredn • is commensurate ivith . the extent:Of the . title aethe time, apd may SO Continue 'until 'a sale is Made, the right tO redeem therefronl is not dependent upon:the ' : nature , Or " extent of 'thiS:liep, but is' a separate provision, granted by , the: State for the benefit of those who may have been . thus deprived -Of 'their . property:• ' ' . It is -within the pokver of 'the Legislature , after an , aigessmeYit. haS b'een : macland before 'the sale, to prescribe - the' conditions 'under 'Which Tedeniption May be -had' if k the'preniises TaXed .-are 'sold ; ‘' -and "actS Of 'this character are hot eonsidered unconStitntional .as ihipait-ing any vésted. or contra:anal' rights' that • might -"be accluired a--purChaserr As' the plaintiff 'tea' his ; fitIe .stibjeet , to the la* rating to 'iedeni . ptiOn Of' h.-T*4n tax . saleg as . it stood at the tithe `of • sale mi'd'n'Ot at tlie tithe of'assessment; he cannot 'snceesSfidly Maihtain that his rights to property have been iinpaired by any, Statd-.tory, change made .since his purchase.," ...( Citing numerous . eases). ..
390 NORTHERN ROAD h,r p . DIST. -V. MEYERMAN. 1169 . In : the, case Of Negats v Ynncey,' Y 22 Iowa • 57, the Supreme 'Court of that State said : •:" The comPetency of: the . LegiSlature to change and . .modify, at all :times, the' Provisions : Of ••its . revenue law is -too • clear to :be questioned. • :If this : change should , inipose new:terias and :ctinditions in the 'collection of taxes alreadY delinquent, .np'on•What ground can the Aefaulting taxpayer .cOmplain? Ile has no , vested rights . or• privileges in the termS.Or pro-_visions , of the law, under which he is a-,defaulter. .We .supposc,, in the: very nature, .of , the case, the law of .the sale must be the, law . to regulate the right of redemption, inasmuch .:as. that must take place 'within.,a prescribed tin-le:froth . the , date of the. former. :See, also. Mack on • • T t ax. Titles, , 353 ;• 37 Cy c. 13. 90; ,CooleY On Taxation (4th E . d.) , Vol. . 4, §I550. . We conclude, therefore, that the court 'below was:in error in holding . that Appellee had a .yested right , under the 'act of '1919 to redeem his land froin any, sale thereof 'Whi ' ch Might' thereafter , occur for a perY)d. ;of .five Years, :notwithstanding this , Statute had ipo...subSegnently 'amended to shorten . ..that time,.and,, as the'sale , Was :had. Under . the'Act of 1921, Which .alloWed only , tWo years .fo redeem after' the ' sale, the proviSidns Of that , :aCtniuSt be aP Plied in deteiinining , the right of . a purchaSer . at ,Such a. sale . to A deed. -• , • It :is . finally: ,insisted,lhat, As appellant ;was. not . a , party. to the suit. condemning the land for sale,,,he is not, for that - re,aso . n, :entitled to :the -w`rit of :possesSion ,which issued in :this . case:: . It was held by*this court; : however, in.the :case of Milter.v.. Henry, 105 Ark., 261, that ,a, pur-- chaser, : at a • judicial sale • becomes a •party ,to the, pro-. ee:edings-and . subject to the orders , of. the .court,- and he ,is:therefore ,entitled. .to the . benefit of , such assistance .from the court as is:necessary to make the orders and :decrees of the court effective., See also•Porter,.Taylor•& Hanson,, 36 Ark. 591.- , • It' fOilows, from what 'we have said; that-the criuit erred in holding that appellee had the right to redeeth
from the sale and in quashing the writ of possession, and the decree will he reversed, and the cause. remanded with directions : to award the tax purchaser a . writ of pogses,- skin.
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.