Opinion
No. 30561.
April 26, 1933. Suggestion of Error Overruled May 8, 1933.
MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS.
Where, on same day property was sold for ad valorem tax and purchased by plaintiff, property was also sold for special improvement taxes and purchased by city, city's title was superior to plaintiffs, and plaintiff, if desiring to perfect title, must redeem from city title it received.
APPEAL from chancery court of Hinds county. HON. V.J. STRICKER, Chancellor.
Bratton Bratton, and L.O. Smith, Jr., all of Jackson, for appellant.
The ad valorem tax is levied on land for the purpose of obtaining revenue with which to operate the municipal government. The Legislature directs the way in which it must collect taxes and provides that the municipal tax collector where not otherwise provided, in all particulars be governed by the general revenue laws of the state, so far as applicable in making such collections.
Sec. 2584, Code of 1930.
Each year's taxes is superior to all liens whatsoever and whensoever created and is superior to tax liens of prior years.
Sec. 3256, Code of 1930.
A sale for one installment should be superior and cut off a title obtained at a sale the previous year for an installment. The purchaser would take title subject to the unmatured installments.
Sec. 2565, Code of 1930.
A sale for an unpaid installment would cut off prior sales for either ad valorem taxes or prior installments and a sale for ad valorem taxes would cut off a prior sale for an unpaid installment or a sale for ad valorem taxes of a prior year.
When the same two lots were sold in April, 1930, by the City of Jackson for ad valorem taxes assessed against said property for the year 1929, this sale was superior to all prior tax and special assessment sales with the right to redeem from such sales.
It could not be held that a title for an installment of a special assessment would not be cut off by a subsequent sale for municipal taxes assessed subsequent to such sale for the installment of special assessment.
The general rule is that the sale under the latter lien cuts off the earlier lien.
Bennett v. City and County of Denver, 197 P. 761.
Ordinarily the doctrine prevails that a valid tax sale will cut off the liens of all taxes assessed for any year previous to that for which the sale was made.
37 Cyc. 1477.
Where private individuals buys land at a county sale for taxes all proceedings, being regular and a municipality having been made a party, such land is purchased free from liens for local improvements assessments.
City of Tacoma v. Fletcher Realty Company et al., 264 P. 997; 26 R.C.L. 401, 404; Woodhill Hulse Electric Company v. Empire Securities Company, 182 P. 422.
The Legislature never intended to enact a law which would give priority to a city lien for street improvement over a lien for taxes levied for governmental purposes.
Studley v. Luse, 173 P. 1182.
If the property is sold in the same year for both an installment of special assessment and also for ad valorem taxes, the purchaser at the special improvement sale obtains the better title.
Seward v. City of Jackson, 144 So. 686.
Since there were no installments to become due and since the ad valorem sale of 1930 was subsequent to the sale to the City of Jackson in 1929, Seward's deeds to the two lots in question wiped out any tax sales for prior years.
The property bought by the City of Jackson at the sale in 1929 for special improvement assessment was subject to ad valorem taxes for the year 1929.
Chadwick v. City of Cambridge, 230 Mass. 580, 119 N.E. 958.
As long as the state or taxing power does not have the absolute interest in the land, the land would be subject to taxation and merely by its redeeming or buying the property would not take it off the rolls.
State, ex rel. Hoover v. Stuart, County Treasurer, 238 P. 305.
Property bought by a city at a tax sale is not exempt from taxation until its title matures.
Alvis v. Hicks, 150 Miss. 306, 116 So. 612.
Appellant is not attempting to confirm title acquired at a tax sale which took place on the same day and in the same year on which the City of Jackson made its purchase. Appellant purchased one year after the purchase of the City of Jackson before the title of the City of Jackson had matured.
W.E. Morse, City Attorney, of Jackson, for appellee.
After the municipality purchased this lot, the taxing officers could not take any further steps looking to the collection of the tax, and the subsequent sale of the land for the taxes was a nullity.
Laurel v. Weems, 100 Miss. 335, 56 So. 451.
Whenever a city or political subdivision of the state secures a piece of property, regardless of how it was acquired, all tax liens automatically are cancelled.
Alvis v. Hicks, 116 So. 612.
When property is acquired by the state in its sovereign capacity, it thereupon becomes absolved, freed, and relieved from any further liability for taxes previously assessed against it, and which are unpaid at the time it becomes so acquired; that from the moment of its acquisition the power to enforce the lien is arrested or abated.
State v. Locke, 219 P. 790; Smith v. Santa Monica, 162 Cal. 221, 121 P. 920; Foster v. Duluth, 120 Minn. 484, 48 L.R.A. (N.S.) 707, 140 N.W. 129.
Argued orally by L.O. Smith, Jr., for appellant, and W.E. Morse, for appellee.
The appellant filed a suit in the chancery court of Hinds county to confirm a tax title to certain lots in the city of Jackson, making the city of Jackson and E.H. Magruder, former owner of the property at the time it was assessed, defendants, and setting up that he was the purchaser of the lots at a city tax sale for ad valorem taxes against the property maturing during the year 1929; said property being sold at the regular time and place for the sale of such property for taxes in the year 1930. Prior to the tax sale, the city had made special improvements upon said property, and, on the same day the property was sold for ad valorem taxes and purchased by the appellant, the property was also sold for special improvements taxes which were in default and purchased by the city, under the law existing at that time. That law has since been amended so as to provide only installments will be embraced in the sale; the statute in each case providing for two years for redemption.
There was no redemption from either the sale for ad valorem taxes or the sale for special improvement taxes.
These matters appearing on the face of the bill to confirm the title, a demurrer thereto was sustained, from which this appeal is prosecuted.
It is argued by the appellant that the ad valorem taxes being levied and assessed for the purpose of maintaining the government are superior to special improvement taxes levied to secure the city against expenditures for sidewalks abutting said property; and that the special improvement taxes are not in the nature of maintaining the city government, but are for special benefits for convenience.
The question appears to us to have been distinctly settled against the contention of the appellant in the case of Seward v. City of Jackson (Miss.), 144 So. 686, wherein the court construing the statute held that the special improvement tax was superior to all other liens except those for state and county taxes, and, at page 687 of 144 So., said as follows:
"The procedure by a municipality to fix a lien for assessments for special improvements is found in chapter 194, Laws of 1924, and in section 6 thereof is found the following applicable and pertinent language: `The governing authority (of a municipality) shall, by resolution, approve and confirm all assessments as finally fixed and adjusted at the said hearing, and such assessments shall, from the date of such confirmation, constitute a lien upon the respective lots or parcels of lands and other real property upon which they are levied, superior to all other liens except those for state and county taxes.' We think it proper to note that, by section 7 of said act, the sale and procedure thereto was to be in the same manner and at the same time as for city ad valorem taxes. That section provided that, if an installment became delinquent, the entire assessment indebtedness should be and was accelerated and became due and payable. This provision was, however, amended by chapter 26, Laws, Ex. Sess. 1929, and the above acceleration clause was omitted therefrom. The power to levy and collect ad valorem taxes on the part of municipalities was conferred by the Legislature by section 2394, Code of 1930, which was in force long before the sale here involved, likewise the power to levy and collect assessments for special improvements is conferred on municipalities by chapter 194, Laws of 1924. The liens and priorities are also fixed by the Legislature, which is the only source of power controlling municipalities. Setting forth the applicable parts of the statutes seems to answer the question fully, and from which we learn that state and county taxes are a lien paramount to municipal taxes or assessments, and the deed to a purchaser executed in pursuance thereto conveys a perfect title. Construing the statute as to the lien for municipal or ad valorem taxes in connection with section 6 of the Laws of 1924, chapter 194, we find that the Legislature fixed the lien for state and county taxes as being paramount to all municipal taxes and assessments. By section 6, the city ad valorem taxes were specifically not excepted along with state and county taxes thereby creating the assessment lien therein provided for as superior to municipal ad valorem taxes, consequently the purchaser at a municipal ad valorem tax sale is advised that he buys the land subject to the lien for unmatured installments of assessments, and that lien is not affected by the sale for municipal ad valorem taxes, and so likewise as to the deed he receives. The Laws of 1924, chapter 194, amend or modify the law as to ad valorem tax liens to this extent."
We think it clear from the statute and this decision that the city's title is superior to that of the appellant; both sales being made on the same day, and that it was the duty of the appellant, if he desired to perfect his title, to redeem from the city the title it received under the sale for special improvements.
The judgment of the court below will therefore be affirmed.
Affirmed.