Bookmark
PDF
Share
CaseIQ

STATE v. AUSTIN ET AL

Supreme Court of Mississippi, In Banc.

Nov 26, 1945

Judgment

Subsequent
References

CaseIQ

Case Information

CITATION CODES

citation codes

DOCKET NO.

No. 35950.

Attorney(S)

Greek L. Rice, Attorney General, by W.B. Fontaine, Assistant Attorney General, for appellant. The applicant was required to sign and swear to each application. Hardy v. Hartman, 65 Miss. 504, 4 So. 545; McLemore v. Anderson, 92 Miss. 42, 43 So. 878, 47 So. 801; Louisville, N.O. T.R. Co. v. Buford, 73 Miss. 494, 502, 19 So. 584; State v. Harper, 195 Miss. 580, 15 So.2d 680; Code of 1942, Sec. 4079 (Laws of 1936, Ch. 174). Hannah, Simrall Foote, of Hattiesburg, for appellees. The six application forms, being six separate sheets of paper, formed parts of only one application, and Mrs. Austin filed only one application to purchase land from the state and she signed and swore to the entire application in the manner required by law. It is a familiar rule of law that the construction placed upon a statute by the public official or agency administering the same is entitled to great weight in construing the statute. The agreed statement of facts in this case discloses that the very question involved in this case was discussed between Mrs. Austin and some employee of the State Land Office at the time this application was filed and that Mrs. Austin was then informed by this employee that she had properly signed and sworn to her application. The Attorney General cites Section 4079 of the Code of 1942, which requires the filing of an application with the State Land Commissioner, and quotes the sentence of the Code section which reads, "Each such application shall be properly sworn to before an officer authorized to administer oaths." A succeeding sentence of the same Code section reads, "Each application shall be given a serial number and shall be entered on a record book on the day it is received." The State Land Commissioner gave only one number to the entire application consisting of the six sheets of paper. He considered the entire document to be only one application and so informed the applicant. It is a significant fact that the statute nowhere requires the application to be made out on one sheet of paper. It is obvious that if an application be prepared stating the facts required by the statute and this application consists of several sheets of paper and the applicant signs and swears to the whole application it will be a valid application even though the applicant's signature and oath will necessarily only appear on one of the pieces of paper going to make up the application. No more would it be necessary for the grantor in a long deed consisting of a number of sheets of paper to sign and acknowledge each separate sheet of the deed. Nor can it be said that the fact that the applicant used the printed forms devised and furnished by the Land Commissioner for making applications has anything to do with the question. The statute (Section 4079, Code of 1942) does not require the applicant to make out his application on the printed form furnished by the Land Commissioner but only requires the applicant to file a signed and sworn application disclosing the information required by statute. The applicant is at liberty to write his application on the typewriter or in longhand on any kind of paper he desires to use, provided only he includes in it the essential information called for by the statute. Is it necessary to write a deed or a promissory note on a particular kind of paper or on a particular printed form or to use a particular set form of language in order to create a valid document? We respectfully submit to the Court that to ask the question is to answer it and that the applicant filed a valid application properly signed and sworn to by her to purchase all of the land described on the six pages of the application and that the Land Commissioner so treated the application. Argued orally by W.B. Fontaine, for appellant, and by James R. Simrall, Jr., for appellee.

JUDGES

Smith, C.J., delivered the opinion of the court.

ACTS

No Acts

See more information ... Less ...

Important Paras

Please sign up to view Important Paras.

TAXATION.

Where applicant filed six separate sheets of paper bradded together, each containing an application for a separate parcel of land that had been forfeited to state for taxes, but only one affidavit was made by applicant and that application was at bottom of first application and covered information required as to only one parcel of land and affidavit did not indicate that it was intended to cover all parcels, the applicant did not acquire title to the other parcels, notwithstanding Land Commissioner's office had advised applicant that the affidavit would cover all applications (Code 1942, sec. 4079).

Smith, C.J., delivered the opinion of the court.

Mrs. Ruth S. Austin filed with the State Land Commissioner six separate sheets of paper bradded together, each containing an application for a separate and distinct parcel of land that had been forfeited to the state for taxes, on six forms furnished by the Land Commissioner therefor, each of which applied only to one of the six parcels of land. Only one affidavit, required by Section 4079, Code 1942, for the purchase of such land, was made by Mrs. Austin and that affidavit was at the bottom of the application that was bradded on the top of the others. The application covering the land here involved was bradded third from the top. Some one in the Land Commissioner's office, whose name and position do not appear, advised Mrs. Austin that this affidavit would cover all of the applications. Separate patents were issued to her for each parcel of this land. The appellees, who inherited whatever interest Mrs. Austin, now deceased, had in this land, filed an original bill of complaint praying for the confirmation of their title to that parcel of this land set forth in the application that was bradded third from the top of those hereinbefore set forth. The appellant filed an answer and cross-bill setting up the manner in which these applications were filed and praying for a decree against the appellees canceling their title to that parcel of land here involved.

The court below dismissed the appellant's cross-bill and granted the relief prayed for by the appellees.

The appellees' contention is that these six sheets of paper constitute one application for the purchase of land and that her affidavit on one of the pages thereof covers all the land. Assuming, but only for the purpose of the argument, that Section 4079, Code 1942, permits these six separate parcels of land to be included in one application for the purchase thereof, the affidavit thereto should cover the information required to be given by the applicant as to all of the land. The affidavit here covers one parcel of the land, but there is nothing in the affidavit, nor elsewhere in any of the six pages bradded together, to indicate that the affidavit to the first of these pages was intended to cover all of them. The erroneous advice given Mrs. Austin by some one in the Land Commissioner's office did not dispense with the compliance by her with the plain provisions of the statute.

The decree of the court below will be reversed and a decree will be rendered here in accordance with the prayer of appellant's cross-bill.

So ordered.