162 Ga. 471 | Ga. | 1926
The petition in this case alleges that on June 7, 1921, W. B. Tucker sold a described tract of land, containing 300 acres, to B. B. Tucker, under a power of sale contained in a certain deed to secure a debt, from T. L. Cain to W. B. Tucker, said security deed being dated January 6, 1921. On November 1, 1921, B. S. Pyles, as sheriff of Glynn County, executed to J. T. Colson a deed to a described fifty-acre tract off of said 300 acres, said deed having been made “after the levy and sale of said propperty by said B. S. Pyles, sheriff as aforesaid, under a tax execution in favor of the State of Georgia and the County of Glynn against the said T. L. Cain.” On June 11, 1924, Edward E. Tay
In the absence of an allegation to the contrary, and in view of the presumption of regularity attaching to all official acts, it must be assumed, from the allegation that the sale under the tax fi. fa. was had on November 21, 1921, that the tax execution issued for taxes due by T. L. Cain on the property in question for the year 1920 or some year prior thereto. This being so, it mattered not who was the owner of the property at the time of the tax sale, since the State’s lien for taxes attached to the property from the time fixed by law for valuation of the same in each year until -such
The request of the plaintiff in error that should this court be of the opinion “that the judgment of the trial court must be affirmed, . . such affirmance be made conditional upon the plaintiff being allowed to amend its petition in any manner that it may be able to do, provided said petition as amended shall be sufficient to set out a cause of action,” and is made before the judgment of this court is made the judgment of the trial court, is denied. Even if the facts set forth in the supplemental brief containing such request had been incorporated in the petition as originally filed, it is not at all certain that the petition would have been sufficient to withstand a general demurrer. See Wilson v. Boyd, 84 Ga. 34 (10 S. E. 499). The rule which the plaintiff seeks to invoke, as announced in Merchants National Bank v. McWilliams, 107 Ga. 532 (33 S. E. 860), and Noles v. Few, 155 Ga. 471 (117 S. E. 374), was applied in each of the named cases because proper proceedings had been instituted prior to the sale under the tax executions. Judgment affirmed.