81 Miss. 348 | Miss. | 1902
delivered the opinion of the court.
The tax collector used the old form of conveyance, prescribed by § 525 of the code of 1880, instead of that prescribed by § 3817 of the code of 1892, and omitted to give the name of the person to whom the land was assessed. If the conveyance had failed to recite that the sale was made for taxes assessed, which seems to us essential, a very much more serious question would be before us. But it does this, reciting that the sale was made ‘ ‘ for the taxes assessed thereon for the year of 1897.” The only point in this record, therefore, is whether the omission of the name invalidates the conveyance. The decisions of other states, whose statutes are unlike ours, are valueless in the determination of this question, because none of
We conclude that there was error in excluding the tax collector’s conveyance as evidence, and that the decree should have been for the complainant below, confirming his tax title.
Wherefore the case is reversed, and a decree will be entered here accordingly.