Tierney v. Brown
Tierney v. Brown
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the court.
This is an action of ejectment brought in the circuit court of Warren county for the possession of the south part of section five, township fourteen, range four east. The defense by Louisa C. Edwards, who was admitted to defend as landlord, is as to the southeast quarter of said section five only.
When this cause was before this court at the October term, 1888, it was held that there was nothing in the record contravening the validity of the assessment and sale of these lands, it not then appearing from the record in the cause that the action of the board of supervisors in accepting and approving the land roll on the 13th day of October, 1879, was not had and taken at a special term, legally called. At the second trial of the case, however, in Warren county circuit court, a fuller presentation was made of the minutes of said board of supervisors, and the record embodying this fuller presentation now before us, shows affirmatively and conclusively that the land roll was approved and accepted, and the tax levied on the real estate in said county, not at a special meeting, but at the regular October term, on the 13th'day of that month, and on the seventh day of the session. There was no authority for the action of the board of supervisors in thus accepting and approving
Affirmed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Ellen Tierney v. King Brown
- Cited By
- 2 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- 1. Tax Title. Board of supervisors. Approval. Code 1871, § 1353. Under the code of 1871, which prohibited boards of supervisors from remaining in session longer than four days at any regular session, an assessment roll which was approved on the seventh day of such session was void, and could not support a sale of land for taxes. 2. Same. Land assessment roll, Warren county, for 1879. Accordingly, the assessment roll for Lands in Warren county for 1879, having been approved on the seventh day of the October meeting of the board of supervisors, was illegal, and a tax title based on it is void.