*1 may February have 1934. 24, been on arrears judgment, agreed upon This which not was and entered April policies until 13, shows on its face 1935, that the lapsed appellee were not deemed the to have become February right 24, 1934, since was therein ex- pressly bring any to him to other desired reserved suit any subsequently accruing disability for benefits which might he having claim or demand as” and be- matured payable subsequent come appellee thereto. Therefore, if meaning

was still disabled within the of the policies and continued so disabled from and after Febru- ary imposed upon 1934, then 24, there was the insurer duty pay any premiums accruing to thereafter out any unpaid disability to benefits accrue. thereafter disability jury This issue of was to under submitted justify sufficient evidence to its submission; and while only verdict jury in the sum of that the shows $100 appellee continuously not was satisfied that was throughout period February disabled sued for from September 24, 1934, 28, 1935, we would not war- be applying any particular period the verdict ranted of such alleged disability so as to work a forfeiture policies nonpayment premiums, as and so appellant peremptory to hold that the was entitled to a complained instruction. Since no other error is of, judgment affirmed. must be

Affirmed. Corporation

Russell Inv. v. Russell.

(Division 1938.) A. Feb.

[178 33028.] So. 815. No. *2 1938.)

(Division A. June 33028.] [182 102. No. So. *5 appellant. Garraway Easterling, & Jackson, *7 appellee. Broadus, of Q. Purvis, A. *10 Broadus,

A. Purvis, Green, Q. Jackson, Green & appellee Suggestion Jackson, Error. *12 Easterling, Garraway, F. J. T. Lamar Purvis, Suggestion appellant Error. Jackson, *15 Stoner, Greenwood, Alfred amicus curiae. pf Hattiesburg, Simrall, Hannah & amicus curiae on Suggestion of Error. *18 opinion JV,

McGehee, of the court. delivered the construing and necessity appeal presents This prescribes a chapter applying 1934, which Laws 196, may two-year actions which within of limitation statute

407 brought by tax cancel be of land to former owners acquired sales thereof to title state, claim of irregu- by patentees of defects, account of land, on such illegalities levy, in or sale of assessment, larities or such land for taxes. April belong- county

On 4, 1932, certain in Lamar land delinquent ing appellee sold to the state for the was year taxes due thereon 1931. It was for not redeemed the then years prescribed by within within the two law, nor year granted purpose the additional cer- under Legislature tain statutes enacted at its April session. Title on to this land matured state patent 4, 1935, and the land was sold under a issued Hardy 9, November Chance, to Mrs. whom from appellant purchased. chapter provides, among

Section 196',Laws 1934, things: mortgagee per- other “That the owner, or other any son interested which or land been has heretofore may be hereafter or sold forfeited to the state for delin- quent may bring taxes a suit or action to cancel the title patentees, state, or its land or to recover said patentees, defect, any from state, or its on account of irregularity illegality levy or in the or assessment, sale *19 delinquent years of such land for taxes, within two after the date act this becomes lands effective to as heretofore delinquent sold or forfeited to the state taxes, and years period redemption within two after of shall the expired, have toas lands hereafter sold or to forfeited delinquent the state for taxes, and not thereafter.” provides comple- section And 3 of said act that: “The prescribed any tion of the limitation herein to bar action extinguish right, shall defeat and all the title and inter- land, including right possession est, the of in and to such any persons of except and all whatsoever, the state of Mississippi patentees, and its it and shall in the vest ’’ state, patentees, simple and its a fee title to lands. such passed April 4, This act was appellee on 1934, and filed his suit on 16, November '1936, to cancel tax the patent together and deed of the with state to the sale appellant through claimed its title

conveyance which the involved. the land to alleged appellee, as complaint that the of bill The pay complainant the failed to had below, in the court year that sale and the 1931, the land for on this taxes delinquent April taxes, 1932, for such 4, made was but it attacks validity on account of the tax the of sale irregularities, illegalities alleged in or defects, certain original, levy, amended, an An sale. assessment, and the complaint supplemental to which filed, were bill of and a complaint supplemental a of demurrer amended bills and ground mainly interposed appellant by on the was the affirmatively allegations show that the thereof that the by alleged complainant’s of cause action was barred prescribed two-year said in of limitation statute chapter this chancellor 1934. The 196, Laws overruled appeal the con- allowed to settle and an was demurrer, principles trolling involved. of law appellee although that, the contention of the It is question in to state tax sale land was of made prior chapter 1934, of the enactment said Laws two-year begin not statute of limitation did to run expiration period redemption, of since until the of not state, contends, the land was forfeited to as he redeeming expired. until In the time for had same it while that, answer this contention should be said period during redemption it is true that tax of a subject by inchoate, is, sale is to be re- defeated demption prescribed within the time and the manner by law, nevertheless, if it the tax sale redeemed, is not so becomes valid, the title relates back to the date of precedence any mortgage, the sale deed, and takes over during or other instrument executed owner such period redemption. legislative pur-

In order to determine the intent and pose statute, the enactment this the consideration dealing statutes, other likewise with the certain

409 and taxes for the state subject-matter of sold land by redemption thereof providing for the terms liberal interpre- helpful proven in the owners, has former the Legislature, its particular at The statute. of tation Extraordinary this (Laws by chapter 383 1932, of Session any 653), provided land sold p. owner that the of 1934, might years redeem 1932-33 1933-34 or for the for taxes years any the date after within three at time the same made land of not embrace the sales This did of sale. act year delinquent thereon for the taxes in 1932 for the Legislature enacted 1934, the 16, but on March 1931, any things, among chapter providing, other that 337, person any the state for taxes land sold to interested any might year at time the same for the 1931 redeem by paying years sale, the after date of within three chancery which of all taxes for clerk the amount sale, and costs incident to land with all sold, was was per it on amount of taxes for which 25 cent might all and taxes and costs costs, sold and all April Then on land since the sale. have accrued chapter Legislature provided by 189, also 4, 1934, the in 1932 for taxes thereof, 14 that lands sold in section might years year within 1931 three for the from be redeemed chap- of the sale, date of and the terms said cent, per per rate month the interest from ter reduced cent, provided per per if the annum, that, and to 6 application by 15, 1934, owner should make December pay either the taxes for which the land was he could cent, subsequent per with 6 interest and the taxes sold per pay taxes, or in discretion annum, his could year interest and was costs for the which land redemption a sold execute tax amount note for the of taxes and costs which accrued on had the land since paid equal of sale, the date note to in four annual be April Legislature installments. Also on fur- 1934, the provided by chapter ther 190 that the owners all lands prior might, expi- sold taxes to that time before the period redemption, year pay ration one taxes ’s *21 year, dur- that and and for another secure an extension might they .redemption ing period; of such extended provided for year secure one as successive extensions of appellee failed However, of act. under the terms said any advantage opportunities offered to take of of the in this behalf. evi- cumulative, all remedies,

These of which were part Legislature to the denced an on the of intention coax the tax lands redeem former of to owners forfeited provided; and, the under same the liberal thus terms having rights delinquent tax- thus dealt with the of the easy payer unprecedented providing liberality with whereby Legisla- methods land, could redeem the he his inducing then ture concerned itself with' matter of the purchase the citizens of the state to been lands which had might sold to the state the state, and to and which thereafter be sold chap- authority of them, assured under the years ter 196 of the of two Laws that after from passage they any the purchase of the act said land could incurring any to sold the theretofore state without risk any irregularities, illegali- as whatsoever to defects, or might levy, ties that have existed the and assessment, of lands, sale said and that this likewise be-true would as to all sales assessment, made, thereafter such unless levy, years and sales were attacked within two the after expiration period redemption. of of the Legislature

The at that time with an was confronted enormously problem trying bring difficult of to back the producing purposes assessment for revenue rollsi approximately 1,300,000'acres of land which there- had delinquent tofore been sold to thereon, state taxes manifestly and it Legislature was the intention of the two-year that prescribed by statute of limitation chapter 196, Laws 1934, within be actions could which brought validity levy, to attack the of assessment, apply sales of land to state, should to all sales regardless theretofore made to state, of whether the period redemption expired of had at the time of passage “sold” To hold the word óf statute. this applies the local the sale was made the date when to word “forfeited” refers and that collector, tax expiration period redemption, of the of date chapter, equiva- in Legislature be are this would as these words used prescribe holding lent that the intended to limitation either two statutes of within different taxpayer might option filing his have the which the provides expressly that the action suit, since the statute brought years sold be within two the land is must after or and not thereafter. state, forfeited to *22 foregoing necessarily

From views it that the follows by present two-year of was barred this the suit statute that demurrer have been the limitation, and should allegations notwithstanding the of bill sustained, of the complaint levy, to the that the effect and assessment, according sale of land were not made law. the to appellant. and here Reversed, decree for opinion J., McG-ehee, the of delivered the court on Suggestion Error. of opinion which in case,

In former rendered this the appears we as and, in 178 court considered So. the 815, correctly applied in Chapter 1934, of 196, think, Laws deciding by presented appellant’s question de- the the by below. which had been overruled the court murrer complaint by appellee former The of bill filed as County sought cancel to of certain land Lamar owner in on a a tax to the state as cloud his title sale made April subsequent patent a to 1932, also from the state 4, Hardy patentee from Chance, Mrs. and a deed said alleged appellant, irregularities because of defects, illegalities levy in assessment, and of the and sale delinquent year land for the taxes due thereon for the 1931. allegations invalidity as to the of tax

The sale were regard as those in to the same made assessment same levy County year in in and of for that taxes Lamar which case of Wells, Miss., 336, v. 179 So. and Pettibone except in merit, therein to be without that held were the case at bar the sale itself is attacked

upon two by grounds: (1) That the land was offered for sale county prosecuting attorney byof the sheriff instead (2) tax collector, and and that the whole one hundred fifty-nine en and tirety an acre tract was offered and as sold having

without the same first in sub been offered provided forty in acres, divisions of the manner section 3249, Code 1930. deciding

In ease ob- we first of these deemed jections consequence, permissible noof since it be is through agent deputy for an officer to act or trustee a or offering property for sale where such trus- officer or conveyance tee thereafter executes the own name. his though objection, consisting specific The second not of a allegation of such facts as would show wherein was there noncompliance a with the mentioned, we statute above purpose assumed, for the a decision, of the was sufficient allegation noncompliance to render defective, the sale irregular illegal, and and that therefore the bill of com- plaint presented necessity and demurrer to us the con- struing applying Chapter 196, Laws of since it affirmatively appeared brought was suit not *23 year prescribed. within the two limitation therein In opinion the constitutionality pass upon former we did not consider or question.

of the statute in issue That urged was neither nor with briefed citation of authori- applied ties. The act was construed and as written. We opinion correctly think applies that the announces and purpose legislature the intention and of in enact- its ment. suggestion question

On of error the of the constitu- tionality fully of the act been briefed, has and we have re- legitimate sorted to all available and sources of informa- seeking tion in to arrive at a correct conclusion in the Dingey light v. Paxton, in the case of of the decision by counsel cited other 1038, and the authorities Miss. litigants, by curiae. counsel well as amicus as for the supra, Dingey was sold to the v. the land Paxton, In Dingey May in was then 10, on 1875. state for taxes possession Au until after of and so remained the land purchased gust, During Paxton month 1879. the land immediately posses thereafter took from the state and under considera of the same. The there sion statute April passed limitation there 11, 1876. The tion was on provided expired, statute the title vest in and under the January contin 1878, time, which 1, in at ed the state uously August, prior aforesaid, and until as thereto, possession Dingey of whereas land, was in the'hill sufficiently allege complaint of at not in the case bar does Subsequent by possession the former owner. such August, dispossessed purchaser, having 1879,Paxton, the ejectment on the former owner in account there was sued provided, among governing of. In that statute case the brought things, he other that “no suit or action shall impeach any any such State, court of the to vacate or any antagonistic or deed, to, to maintain title or deed there year brought within next unless same shall he one expiration of deed, the date of after after such and year deed, after the auditor’s the same one date of such by shall he and deemed all the courts held this State paramount upon title, to he conclusive evidence of ejectment possessory which actions and all actions may speaking he maintained.” 8. court Section The Judge through Cooper “There no of the said: is doubt expressed pur legislative act. will as The evident pose against was to secure the title claimed State ground, upon all bv anv attacks the owner after the ex piration of a the time limited. The act two has fold operation: prescribes period first, limitation, a it short brought after which no suit shall he hv owner for. recovery properti^; secondly, gives of the it *24 conveyances as effect a conclusive under the tax-sales thereby inquiry cutting the exist- all into off evidence, operates a irregularities thus as or defects, ence of and ’’ opinion further of it is In the course curative law. the prescribe Legislature power to “the of the stated that right having a mere within what time one reasonable unquestionable; a proceed but there is of action shall is requires legislation which that between wide distinction speed- right pursue having right the sue, mere to one ily, a to necessity con- the suit that which creates and possession right verting ac- a mere an estate in into may be in which the suit tion, then time and limits the brought. designation an act an act as The mere of such it in its nature for it is such, of limitation does not make operation the that. first to divest from more than Its is possession property to and owner his the constructive possession thus invest it in and in favor of the another, put operation of limitations to transferred in a statute protection.” complete for its ultimate and in In that sold not been described case lands had words, located; so be other there assessment as to juris- fundamental valid It to bad been assessment. is no power diction of the to sell that there and existence land; shall an of the that the shall assessment land be subject taxes taxation, be to and thereon shall unpaid. court it a sale to Therefore, be had before though objection, a which was even there constitutional day noncompli- wrong also on the the land was sold statutory requirement. ance with a While the decision objections, of the of these as court was based on both judgment of well as the fact that the effect of the require, a limitation, court was to statute of helow under enjoyment possession one in full of all that he prescribed within commence time a claimed suit may land, the decision case have recover objection that (cid:127)well constitutional the land rested located, to he and on was not described so as the fact *25 attempt posses- that there was an an to convert in estate right sion into a mere of action. support

In of of the correctness the conclusion reached Dingey supra, may in v. it be that Paxton, observed the rule is that, universal to the effect to the extent that the statute there under with consideration was dealt as a cur retroactively ative law, it could not cure a to failure ob requirements serve the constitutional as to the assess levy Dealing ment, and of sale land for taxes. the with the statute as one limitation, the decision was also holding legislature power correct in that the without is compel legal proceedings by a resort to one who is already possession complete enjoyment in the of all and Cooley’s he claims. Limitations, Constitutional ed., 8th equally legis vol. 763, 2, 764. It well is settled that the authority by lature is vested with to cure a retroactive any requirement may statute the failure to observe that it dispensed have in advance, with such as those which merely .statutory. are In other the words, that, rule is in thing absence constitutional if the limitations, wanting, or which failed to done and which consti be irregularity illegality proceed tutes the defect, or in the ing, something necessity legislature is for which the might dispensed prior legislature by have statute, has power dispense subsequent by Cooley’s with statute. Limitations, Constitutional ed., 2, 8th vol. 775, 794; 12 1091; C. J. 61 C. R. L. 1238, 1364; J. 6 321; C. Bolles v. Brimfield, 120 U. S. S. Ct. 30 L. 759, 736, 786; 7 Ed. v. States, Street 299, United 133 U. S. 10 Ct. 33 309, S. Turpin L. 631; Ed. v. 187 23 Lemon, 51, 20, U. S. S. Ct. Sykes 47 L. Ed. 55 70; Columbus, v. Town of Miss. 115; Penny, Bailey, 5; Powers v. 59 Miss. Nevin v. 62 Miss. City 433; v. 62 Dortch, 671; Gibbs Miss. Griffith v. Vicksburg, principle 102 Miss. 58 So. 781. 1, This was recognized Dingey supra, also ey’s in v. when Paxton, Cool quoted sup Limitation, 370,

Constitutional in was port general The rule last above thereof. mentioned is

416 qualification

subject, cura such that to the however, power been a total has not exist tive does there where specifically departure law and from the method has plainly the sales as to manner which declared including to first offer conducted, shall a failure be required Virden v. statute. as land subdivisions Nelson 348; Miss. Ellis, 63 1; 55 Griffin v. Bowers, Miss. Abernathy, Womack v. 150; 21 164, v. Miss. So. To same 201, 2. Co., Miss. 94 So. Lumber Central principle is concerned is involved effect far as the so Lumbley, Mortgage v. 149 Miss. Co. of Yazoo-Delta case rights being of all 864, 116 reason So. *26 parties of for and the a sale taxes are fixed to contract by governed made, the sale is statute under which the substantially rights im be and these cannot thereafter paired 1 of 10, Article Fed 1, section the under clause Const, 10, A. cl. 1, eral S. C. art. section Constitution, U. appellee’s 1. of land for taxes was here When the sale obligated 3249, under Code the state section was made provid of to sale in the manner therein 1930, offer it for legislature remedy to do ed, not the and the could failure Chapter 1934, by of 196, so statute. Laws a curative But irregu defects, not to cure does undertake or validate levy illegalities sale assessment, and larities and in the purely limitation, of It a land for taxes. is statute of rights away any and but does not take vested fixes a period they may of in which be as time reasonable right It to the former owner the sue and serted. leaves defects, ir have sale because of declared void such the regularities illegalities. 1, Clause Article 10, and section by 1 a of the Federal not violated stat Constitution is impairing obligation ute, of a contract, where the as an rights away existing thereunder are neither taken nor provided a diminished, where time is reasonable they may after In 12 which be enforced its enactment. power 978, C. J. that enact of it is “the to statutes said subject fundamental is to limitation the condition that a

417 time be shall allowed the of reasonable rights exercise existing prospective, of action, whether or after prospective present operation it within of comes or the statute . and before bar becomes effective. . . competent leg- Within these limits, it is for the however, reducing period extending islature, either of or regulate may limitation, within which suits time ’’ brought existing be even causes of action. Supreme The Court of held in the United States case of Turner v. State New 168 U. York, 90, S. S. 38, Ct. 42 L. “it 392, Ed. that well that a is settled shortening period statute of limitation within is power legislature, provided constitutional of the a rea- taking sonable time, into consideration the nature of the bringing passage case, is allowed for an action after the Terry the statute, and before the bar takes effect. v. Anderson, 95 U. S. L. 628, 632, [24 365, 366]; Ed. [McGahey Virginia], In re Brown v. 135 U. 662, 701, S. 10 S. 705-707, [34 Ct. 972 L. 318].” In 304, 316, Ed. Turner Case the statute related to con- lands sold and veyed nonpayment provided state for taxes and any begun action not within six after its months passage would barred, be court and the therein said: argued plaintiff “It was in behalf of the in error that the statute was unconstitutional, because.it did not al- any opportunity low rights, him to assert his with- even *27 passage. in six months after its But the statute did not away any right take of action which he had before its passage, merely but the within limited time which he might right. assert such a Within the six he months, every remedy had he which have would had the before passage present of the statute.” in the Likewise case appellee by there was reserved unto the a the statute period years full passage of two after its in as- which to any irregularity illegality sert defect, or in the assess- levy question. ment, 978; and sale in 12 C. J. Callanan v. Hurley. 93 387, U. L. S. 23 Ed. 931; Smalls, Treville v. De

418 Cooley’s 2 Constitutional L. Ed. 174; 517,

98 U. S. “It essen- it is said: is where ed., 764, 8th Limitations, they after allow a reasonable time that tial such statutes upon of exist- suits commencement for the take effect though a ing be considered what shall action; of causes judgment of the must be settled the time reasonable inquire legislature, into the wis- will not and the courts legal establishing period of the of in dom its decision manifestly insufficient so allowed is bar, the unless time justice.” denial of becomes a that the statute unconstitutional that the statute is It is next insisted period provides therein of limitation that it that the in prescribed prior apply state the not lands sold to shall to January lands that distinction between 1, 1928; to subsequently prior has those sold sold to that date and viola in and that the classification is basis, no reasonable equal guaranty protection of tion of the federal as 1. How 14, law. A. Amend. section U. S. C. Const. in 6 R. C. L. that 384, announced “the ever, rule is primarily legislature, question of classification for the is except judicial question and it can never become a determining, any given purpose of in situation, legislative clearly action is whether the unreasonable. . question, . in a law . classification in When the is called any reasonably

if can state facts con be it, that that ceived would sustain existence of state at law enacted must be assumed. facts the time was require legislature specify The courts cannot its they always pre classification, reasons for the but will legislature legitimate grounds that sume acted grounds if distinction, such exist.” who assails the One carry must classification in a the burden of statute show ing any it that not rest on does reasonable basis. It is presumed legislature making in discriminations adequate statutes them on classifications bases grounds. Grocery Co., v. Gilmer 156 Miss. State So. 710.

419 hy legis determining statutes enacted whether In imposed by federal and limits transcend the lature proceed with the courts should constitutions state greatest possible they declare never and should caution; judgment invalidity their its is in a statute void unless They beyond a should doubt. reasonable established harmony bring with dopt will it into that construction a application by restricting to the its the constitution necessary legislation, in legitimate whenever field of provi carry uphold constitutionality its and order to its Money 118 152 So. 17, v. Miss. Wood, into effect. sions 177; v. Miss. 357; Mai v. 152 119 So. Smith State, 225, County, 96, 705; 125 So. Miller 171, Chickasaw 156 Miss. v. Sherrard, 124, 903; v. 157 126 Chassanoil Miss. So. City 291 Greenwood, 781; Id., of 166 Miss. 148 So. 848, Printing 54 L. 584, 1004; Ed. Tucker 541, U. S. S. Ct. County, Supervisors Co. v. of of 171 Miss. Board Attala “to 608, 158 So. 336. been that doubt the It has said constitutionality law to in of resolve such doubt favor a is validity.'” EVery of intendment in favor consti its is of tutionality repugnancy its to the constitution unless appears, appear beyond clearly a is to reasonable or made £ In 6 B. a doubt. C. L. it is said that£ statute enacted comes before the with constitutional formalities courts sustained and and authenticated the sanction approval great departments two of of the three of the government, presumption state hence and in its fa proprietjg expediency leg vor.” The wisdom and question legislature a islation is for the and not for the though particular courts, even statute under review appear may to unwise be or detrimental in best principles terest of the state and not with the accord justice. legis presumed will natural be It that the lature has considered effect of the statute citizen, constitutional riedits it acted and just pro patriotic from motives a and with desire public good. presumption strengthened mote This is *29 by actuated present which considerations case the

the opinion. legislature, former in our as discussed the upheld as urged be cannot the statute It next that is prior applying thereto, made sales of land for taxes to required in such owner is that the former for the reason challenge legality all, if at with- sales, passage' of the to the cases years act, of the of the in from the two date Chapter the former 1934, Laws of 383, under whereas years given of in sale from the date owner three was during other in 1933 the which years sold and to redeem land Chapter by of virtue and that mentioned, therein previously passed April sold, as 1934, on lands 196, 4, September, be redeemed as 1933, in could instance, Chapter September, 196, therefore, as 1936; that, late by very the fee sim- would vest 1934, Laws of its terms patentees, ple before state, in or its title lands the of such redemption period expiration year al- of of the the three response contention is that lowed therefor. Our to this a case before us. Until a case we do not now have such applied sought presented be statute to is wherein the is portion unexpired period of as to cut off an of the re- so demption pass question. unnecessary on As it is to the period redemption of ex- involved, to the land here pired prior year when the two to time the bar of of of become effective. We are statute limitation could opinion that the fact is immaterial here the stat- that concurrently portion with a ute of limitation of the ran period redemption, was not to shorten of its effect since redemption period, appellee as former own- by 404, 1930, of insti- er was authorized section Code to expiration prior period limitation, of the of tute, to the appellant a a of as cloud, to cancel the claim the suit appellee suspicion was title, doubt on whether in or his possession was to whether he be not, or or threatened although required possession; he was not disturbed in his long any may limitation so as he to do of so statute possession Dingey in after the sale. v. remained have

421 supra; Cooley’s Limitations, Constitutional 8th Paxton, Yazoo 100 763, Co., Hamner v. Delta Lumber ed., 764; nothing 56 466. find contra this 349, Miss. point So. We Atchafalaya Cypress Co., Land Co. v. Williams 284, U. S. Ct. 66 Ed. cir 190, 559, S. L. since the possession pres cumstance of also land was there ent. applied irregularities illegalities

As defects, or levy assessment, and sale for tax- land state jurisdictional objections, other than or constitutional es, opinion constitutionality of are of that the we chapter upheld; 196, said must Laws be may successfully within this limitation the statute be against any invoked as of limitation suit which one seeks *30 challenge validity any of the tax sale state, to to the em- ground provisions, within of braced the the existence irregularities illegalities, particu- defects, of such or and larly application where the effect of its would be neither period redemption, shorten to the allowed for to di- nor possession. an vest estate in complaint

But it be should noted that the bill of in the sufficiently at case bar, stated, as heretofore not al- does possession lege part appellee of the land on of the the Chapter either at of the time the enactment of 196, Laws of or in 1934, thereafter, but view of the that fact he pleading would been to entitled have amend the in that by behalf had the demurrer been sustained the court be- the low, cause should now be reversed and remanded for proceedings may proper. such further as be deemed And in order that there be no doubt as to what we hold, here sufficiently it let be understood whenever it is shown any in case that the former owner land to of the sold possession state for has in taxes remained thereof after person by sale, the in or tenant, either then and in such Chapter applica- 196, event 1934, Laws of shall no have possession tion, and that the claim title of and of such only by proof former can owner be defeated of a valid 422 un- levy for both of the taxes and land sale

assessment, coupled with Constitution, the statutes as well as der the al- within the time from such sale a failure to redeem given by statute Otherwise, the must be law. lowed limita- the constitutional within effect, force and full provided in for and mentioned, as tions hereinbefore keeping with the 3 thereof, declares, which in section regard provisions of statutory to other in the effect period completion the of that the of limitation, statutes pre-exist- extinguish any defeat and of limitation shall except persons remedy right ing whatsoever, all or patentees, etc. and the state its appellee Finally, the a case it contended that stated is alleged equitable ground fraud of the relief on through by appellant, acting perpetrated on state purchase agent, patentee in land. as its of the deciding, Assuming, alleged in but not that if the facts complaint patent in that are the bill behalf true predecessor appel- in of the from the state title presented, lant appellee under now invalid, is still case allege prove must an order recover existing independently any title in defect in himself, appellant, perpe- the title claimed of the fraud or procurement. Rogers, 85 Miss. trated its Jones v. Gilchrist-Fordney Keyes, 742; 38 So. Co. v. 802, 619. Miss. So. given

For we our the reasons hereinbefore adhere to *31 holding former the demurrer should have been judgment but sustained, the final here will be rendered set aside and cause will be remanded.

Suggestion overruled. of error