Applewhite v. Foxworth
Applewhite v. Foxworth
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion- of the court.
The answer is evasive. It does not deny that Bennett told appellant that the sum needed for redemption was $2.75, nor. that Bennett received that sum for that purpose, nor that Bennett was then acting as deputy chancery clerk. And it expressly admits that the appellees asserted title to said land through and by virtue alone of the tax title. The answer uses the plural “they,” and expressly admits a claim of joint ownership through the tax deed. The cause was heard on bill and answer. The decree should have been for appellant. The appellant was not put to proof to support his bill by this evasive and irre-sponsive answer. See authorities in brief of counsel for appellant.
Reversed, and decree here for appellant.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Jeremiah Applewhite v. Charles R. Foxworth
- Cited By
- 1 case
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- 1. Chancery Pleading and Practice. Answer. Evasive denials. Code 1893, g 533. An evasive answer in chancery, which does not deny the allegations of the bill, is insufficient to put the complainant upon proof. Code 1893, ?533. 3. Tax Titles. Redemption. Chancery clerk misleading owner. Joint claimants. Where a deputy chancery clerk- is jointly interested with the purchaser of land at a tax sale, although not named in the tax deed, and timely application is made to him in his official capacity by the owner of the land to redeem, and he informs the owner that a certain sum of money is sufficient for that purpose, and receives said sum therefor, allowing the owner to depart believing that he has redeemed the land, neither the officer nor the vendee named in the deed can thereafter claim that the redemption was not perfected because the sum paid was insufficient.