53 Iowa 508 | Iowa | 1880
The defendant Smith, then, could at once upon obtaining her tax deed have maintained her action against the minor Tatman for the recovery of possession, unless the fact that she already had construetÍA7e possession should be deemed to preclude her, and it Avas held in Barrett v. Love, 48 Iowa, 103, that it should not. The fact that the minor might redeem at any time within a year after the removal of disability would not entitle him to hold possession against the holder of a valid tax deed. The legal title in general carries the right of possession, and the minor cannot set up anything against it if it is regular until he has defeated it by exercising his right to redeem. It is true the minor has before the exercise of such right an interest in the land which may be conveyed by deed, (Stout v. Merrill, 35 Iowa, 47 (58),) but, as it is held in that case, it is an equity, and it must be enforced if at all in a court of equity. Code, § 893.
As more than five years had elapsed after the defendant Smith had obtained her tax deed, and there being nothing to hinder her at any time from bringing an action to recover the property — Barrett v. Love, above cited — her right now to set up her tax deed must be deemed to be barred.
The appellee insists that this case is not triable because we have not the whole record before us. The evidence is not set out, but a finding of facts is. This we are inclined to think Avould be insufficient but for an agreement entered into by
Reversed.