emrr v..mr·rMAu.: 15
thing required to be done by law to make a valid tax sale;"and- that
it is not, therefore, open to the plaintiff to prove the irregularities re-
lied on to invalidate the sale. But the supreme court of the state
has held that provision of the statute unconstitutional, and decided.
that\the deed is only prima facie evidence that the necessary steps
were taken to make a valid sale. Cairo, dr F. R. C0. v. Parks, 32
Ark. 131; Hickman v. Kempner, 35 Ark. 505. The fact that no
warrant was issued to the collector authorizing him to collect the
taxes, as required by section 5139, is fatal to the tax title. Cooley,
Tax’n, 292, and casescited. The failure of the assessor to authen-
ticate his assessment roll by the oath requiredby section 5112, is
' also fatal to the validity of the tax sale. Cooley, Tax’n, 289, and
cases cited; Burroughs, Tax’n, 232, 249, 250. Irregularities less
serious than either of these have been held to avoid tax sales in this
state. Hickman v. Kempncr, supra; Hare v. Oarnall, 39 Ark. 196;
Crane v. Randolph, 30 Ark. 579; Pack V. Crawford, 29 Ark. 489;
Vernon v. Nelson, 33 Ark. 748. 1 t
It is objected that the plaintiif did not tender to the defendant the
taxes paid by him, with penalties, etc., and make affidavit of that
fact, as required by section 2267 of Gantt’s Digest, before bringing
his suit. That section has no application. to suits like the one at
bar. Chaplin v. Holmes, supra; Hare v. Carnall, 39 Ark. 196, 203.
u The provisions of section 5214 of Gantt’s Digest are applicable to
this case, and the defendantis entitled to recover in this suit the
taxes, interest, penalty, and costs of advertising charged on the land
at the time of the sale, and all subsequent taxesipaid by her, with
interest, and to have a lien decreed on the land for the same. Hunt
v. Curry, 37 Ark., 100. · .
As to the equities of a purchaser at a tax sale, independentlyof
the statute, see Hickman v. Kempner, 35 Ark. 505, 510; Hare v. Car~
nall, 39 Ark. 196, 203; Ware v. Woodall, 40 Ark. 42; ;Oha,;7`c v. Oliver, `
39 Ark. 531. l .
v Curr and others v. Dm··rMAN and others.}, i i
Pansy and others v. Comsr and another} v
(0'ircuit Court, E'. D./Missouri. July 25, 1884.) _ V
1. Gmmnu. Assrsrmnivr BY Insonvam Dmnron-—Rav. Sr. Mo. 6 354, Cox-
sT7\lliEdi·e an insolvent debtor transfers all his, property to a single creditor, un-
der such circumstances that it is obvious that there is no intentlouiof merely
giving security, the transfer will be treated as-an assignment in trust for the ,
_ beneiit of all his creditors, within the provisions of section 354 of thevlierised
Statutes of Missouri, regardless ofthe form of the instrument. _ ` V - _ _   _ Y
llleported by Ben]. F. Rex, Esq., of the St. Louis bar. A V ' I *`?¤ ’