ARK.] . STRINGER V. CONWAY. COUNTY ; BRIDGE DIST. 481
STRINGER V. CONWkY COUNTY BRIDGE DISTRICT. 4-3.270
Opinion delivered December 18, 1933. 1. TAXATION— EFFECT OF CONFIRMATION OF TITLE.—Where lands are forfeited to the Siate for nonpayment of taxes and confirmation is had, all irregularities and informalities connected with the forfeiture and sale are cured, but, if the State did not have pOwer to sell for taxes, as- *here the taxes had been paid or the lands Were exempt, the sale_ and confirmation are void. . BRIDGES—L1EN FOR IMPROVEMENT TAX.—Sale of lands to the State for nonpayment of the general taxes suspends enforcement of an improvement tax.lien sO long a g the title remains in- the State; but such lien, under Crawford & Moses' Dig.,.§ • 5433, may be enforced when the land goOs back to , private rownership. 3. TAXATION—CONFIRMATION OF TAX TITLE.—The clerk's failure to post a delinquent *list was an irregularity which was cured by confirmation of the State's tax title, under Acts 1929, No. 296. TAXATION—IMPROVEkENT TAX—PENALTIES.—Although enforcement of a bridge improvement district's lien was suspended while the title . to the land was in the State after forfeiture for nonpayment of gerieral taxes, no penalties for nonpayment of such improvement tax 'attached during such time. Appeal from ConwaY Chancery Court ; W. E. Atkin. son, Chancellor ; affirmed. Edward Gordon, for appellant. E. A. Williams, for appellee. MEHAFFY„T. The appellee filed, in the Conway Chancery Court, a complaint . againSt delinquent lands, alleging that the Conway County Bridge District was. duly organized, and the assessment of benefits was . duly made and extended again gt- the real 6state and lands within the district, and annual tax levied thereon, fOr the purpose of paying and retiring the bonds and bther indebtedness incurred in the construction and completion of said improvement. It is alleged that the lands described were duly assessed for taxes for the years 1925 to 1930.
482_ . STRINGER V. CONWAY. CODNTY BRIDGE - DIST . [188 inclusive, and that the assessments are . past-due and unpaid, and that the bridge district, appellee, is - entitled to recover the taxes, together with the 25 per cent. penalty, interest, and cost and reasonable attorney's fee, all of which constitute a valid, subsisting lien upon said lands, lying and being situated in the . county of Conway, State of Arkansas. Then follows a description of the lands, and prayer for taxes, interest and cost ; that the lien of the said district be declared, decreed and enforced, and that the lands be sold as provided -by law for the payment of said taxes, interest, penalty, attorney's fee, and cost. and all other proper- and equitable relief. Summons was issued and published as required by law. The appellant, W. H. Stringer, filed intervention, answer, and plea of res judicata. In bis plea, appellant Claimed to be tbe owner and in possession of certain lots, describing them, and alleging that he had purchased the property from the State of Arkansas under the provisions of act 296 of the Acts of 1929. Appellant further alleged that on March 23, 1933, the chancery court of Con-waY County entered .a decree confirming the title in the State, in and to the lands purchased by the intervener, and vesting the absolute title in the intervener, free from any liens or claims by the , Conway CountY Bridge District. A copy of said deeree was attached to, and exhibited with, the intervention, and made part thereof. The appellant pleaded this decree as a complete bar to appel-lees' right to judgment Against the property owned by the intervener. The appellees filed a reply to the answer and plea of res judicata of appellant, stating numerous reasons why the sale to the State was illegal. Appellant demurred to the reply, and asked that his title to the property described be quieted - and Confirmed. The : chancery court dismissed, for want of equity, the pleas filed by appellant, and overruled his demurrer, and dismissed , appellant's petition, and granted tbe relid prayed for by . the appel-lees, and sustained tbe lien. It is the contention of the .appellant that when he received a deed from the State, it was free froth all liens of improvement district assessments.
ARK.] STRINGER V. CONWAY COUNTY BRIDGE DIST. 483 When lands are forfeited to the State for nonpayment. of taxes, and eonfirmation is had under act 296 of 1929, all irregularities and informalities connected with the forfeiture and sale for taxes are cured, and in all cases where tbe State had the power to sell, the title maybe confirmed in the State. If tbe State did not have the - power to sell for taxes, then, of course, the sale would.be absolutely void, and a confirmation would be void. If taxes on a tract of land had already been paid, the sale would be void, or if the property was not subject to taxation; but in all cakes where the State has power to sell, and a decree has been entered in accordance with the provisions of act 296 of 1929, although the sale may be void for irregularities and -. informalities, all persons are barred by the decree of confirmation, and cannot thereafter take advantage of any informality or irregularity. The decree, however, does not relieve a purchaser from the State of payment of . assessments, because the sale to the State does not extinguish the lien, it merely suspends the lien while the title. is in the State. This court, in referring to the act of March 27, 1925, said tbat the statute, of course, had.no application to the present litigation, but that § 5433 of'Crawford & Moses' Digest was equally potential in continuing the lien of the improvement districtr--and in preventing its extinguish-ment by a sale for general taxes. The court further said : "The words, 'all demands, executions, incumbrances or liens whatsoever created,' have no reference, to the State's paramount lien for taxes. But the words „which follow unmistakably carry the' meaning that the special taxes of the improvement distrid shall continue until fully paid, and-are not extinguished. Of-eourse, the forfeiture to the State of lands for ieneral taxes necessarily 'suspends the_ enforcement-of the speCial tax lien, as long as the title -remains in the State, but, as tbe lien, under the terms of the Statute, is not extingiiished,.and con tinues until tbe special taxes are -paid, the same can be enforced when- the land goes -back into private ownership." . Turley v. St. Francis County Rd..Inip. Dist. No. 4, 171 Ark. 939, 287 S. W. 196.
484 . STRiNGER V. CONWAY COUNTY - BRIDGE DIST; -1,188 Act 71 of the ACts of 1917, creathig the ,Conway County Bridge District, expressly proVides that the- ass'6sSraents be a lien against all real estate in said district from the date of- said resolution, and entitled to prefererice -over all judgments, executions, Mourn-brancés, or other liens whatever, and shall continue until suck assessment, with' any penalfy and cost which may accrue' • thereon, shall be paid.. -• There is nothing in act 296 of the Acts of 1929 that changes this rule announced by this cOurt, Or repeals or . modifies- the law creating the lien. It iS true that § 8 of act -296 provides that the improvement diStrict may be made a pa -tty, ancl,' if it wiShes to do so, it may pay the taxes, penalty and cost, and be subrogated to State's lien fOr . the ' amonnt so . paid,' and said improvement district may . -inclulle the amount:due the district for taxes, and have the. riga to foreclose for . such -. amount, as though the same had- been assessed against such, lands in favor of the,:iMprovement district, .- • Section-9.•of the act provides that the decree of confirmation shall-operate . as a- complete bar against any and . all . persons wbo . may 'thereafter ' claim said land in consequence of any inforMality or illegality in the proceedings, andthe title to land shall be considered as con: firmed and complete in the State forever. There is, how-. ever, no intimation in the act that improvement district taxes . shall be extinguished.. • We again •held that forfeiture to the State of lands_ for general taxes necessarily ' . sUsPends• the enforcement of the . special, tax lien, as long as The . title remains in the State, but, as the . lien under the ternis of the statutC is not extinguished, and Continues until the special taxes are,paid, the same , canbe enforced when the land goes back to private ownership. Hopper v. Chandler;183 Ark. 469, 36 S. W. (2d) 398. . We have . repeatedly held that_forfeitures to the State for,.generat taxes suspends the enforcement of the lien for improvement district taxes, but it does not extinguish the lien. Therefore, when the appellant purchased the land in question from the State,..the lien for bridge improvement districts att{iched, and, unless-the assessments
were paid, the lands could .be sold .to enforce the lien. There is nothing in act '296, supra, that changes the laW on this subject. • , . The failure of the clerk to post the delinquent list-was -an irregularity-which was cured by the. confirmation under act 296; and-while the enforcement of .the lien for improvement taxes -vas' suspended while the title• was in. the State, no 15enalties attached during this Aime. The- decree of -the chancellor is correct, and 'it is therefore affirmed.
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.