*1
2SI
Knapp,
Moore,
552;
Miss.
State ex
v.
334, 97
rel.
So.
Slay
Stout
v.
Co., Miss.
So.
709,
433;
’ ’
Lowery,
“A to land do- by sovereign very highest main is the evidence title. ... ‘‘ patent presumption Such a carries it the that all with necessary legal prerequisites to its issuance have been complied presumption charged with; the that the officers executing grants performed with land have their duties regard to the several acts to be done Harris them. Surget v. McKissack, [Doe Miss. v. ex dem.] supra; Little, 24 Miss. 118; Sweatt Bledsoe Corcoran, supra; Spencer, supra.” v. Little, Carter v. agreed
Moreover statement facts discloses applicant patent misrepre- did or this not conceal any patent application sent material fact in his question, perpetrate any upon and did fraud not procurement. state in its
The decree of the trial court should therefore af- be firmed.
Affirmed.
Love et al. v. Barron. (In Suggestion of Banc. Error and Motion Correct Dec. 12, 1945.)
Record Feb. Overruled [20 35742.] 97. No. *2 appellants. Poplarville, Morse', M.
J. *3 Hathorn Hathorn, of Hattiesburg, for appellee. appellants, Argued orally by Morse, M. J. appellee. Hathom, F. O. *4 opinion
Alexander, J., of the court. the delivered upon by appellants a cloud to as Bill was filed cancel County tax a certain certain lands in Lamar their title to appellee. patent by was The cause issued the state to testimony upon The heard and the bill dismissed. answer documentary chiefly issues was discloses no factual which not discussed. and is therefore
235 of as “The West-half lands involved described lying part East the and all that of of the S1/^ SW1^ SE14 Highway No. 11 of the Public Boad known as the U. S. Highway, often referred as the Jackson all in Section to Township Kange complainants 14 West.” The North deraigned and out the title from the set sale Government delinquent April, to 1932, thereof the state in taxes property preceding year. was the due the taxes part larger contiguous a were lands which tract separately parts Semmes, assessed three and in to Scanlan and the that list sales certified the shows such to state separate there were three thereof the several sales portions, being 4210, such sales numbered and 4136, respectively. sufficiently ap It that was thus shown the plicable statute, 3249, Code sec. was not followed Claughton and that the sale void. Leavenworth v. was (Miss.), seriously (2d) is So. 815. It not contended occupancy patentee by that there was sufficient actual to invoke Code 1930, section 2288. v. Richerson,
See Cox 186 Miss. 99, 124 A. L. R. 1138; Grant v. Montgomery, (2d) Smith Anderson, 193 Miss.
Appellee contends, however, that it was incumbent upon appellants complainants as in the below to court upon strength show and recover, if at all, of their own by testimony title, and that it was shown the defendant’s that one link in the chain of an invalid title was trustee’s alleged sought infirmity by deed. The was to be shown provisions whereby of a deed trust, de- foreclosed subject right ferred installments were of accelera- tion which had been and exercised because of a which, prior attempt properly abortive to foreclose, where not alleged so foreclosed until after bar limitations. Such facts would render the not deed void but most trustee’s at upon only, by party voidable an affirmative defense a deraignment thereto. The showed trustee’s deed “passed title in form at least” to and Semmes, Scanlan predecessors appellants’ appellee title, a as *5 party position point. third is a raise House not in to the Grumble Reliance Inv. Co., 78 Miss. Company v. Johnson, .
749 opinion, chan- We are of the that the learned therefore, dismissing complainants’ bill, in and cellor was error in be award- that the decree must and entered here reversed appellant prayed ing In the neces- the relief for. view of stating sity parties the for taxes an account between appellee paid on in the interim and for such said lands purpose only, cause remanded. is
Reversed and remanded. Suggestion oe Error.
ON opinion sug- J., Roberds, of the on delivered court gestion error and correct record. of motion to original referring opinion, sales, number of to the being and said “such numbered sales ’’ respectively. did these numbers under The record show heading therefore, was, of The court the justified “No. Sale.” expression. Appellee, in that this
in use of suggestion and to of error motion correct the combination says receipt, tax were fact tax and not record, these in permission to file and make numbers, and asks now sale, photostatic copies part appeal certified a of the record receipts, record rolls, tax and the land assessment relating to the tax sales state, and list lands sold opinion question. these made reference to here merely the lands as evidence of the fact that numbers more one sale. The docu- than offered and sold were part a in no made the record now asked to be ments they contrary, disprove so far fact. as that On wise support they addition, fact. that In evidence, rather as here lower court and none no issue in the there was charged, sale. The bill more than one there was whether frankly were -admitted, lands the answer contiguous adjacent, constituted one were tract, as- *6 sessed the same owner, and were not offered and sold as a unit at one sale. case tried below and has was argued assumption. been here on that The contest has Appellant been on other issues. does not now assert there only one sale. was Some now offered documents already are in the record, offered are not those which in the record would not alter fact that there was more than one sale. It would be useless sustain the motion. suggestion incorporation of error assumes that the into the record of the tendered documents would neces- sarily produce a from different result that reached in the original opinion. That correct. is not Therefore, suggestion motion of error both overruled. Overruled.
Brashier v. State.
(In 11, 1944.) Banc. Dec. [20 So. No. 35681.]