Bolivar County v. Coleman

• Citation: 15 So. 107,71 Miss. 832
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Decision Date: 12 March 1894
• Parties: BOLIVAR COUNTY v. M. W. COLEMAN ET AL

15 So. 107

71 Miss. 832

BOLIVAR COUNTY v. M. W. COLEMAN ET AL

Supreme Court of Mississippi

March 12, 1894

March 1894

FROM the chancery court of Bolivar county, HON. W. R. TRIGG Chancellor.

Bill by Bolivar county against M. W. Coleman and others to confirm title to a sixteenth section of school-lands and to cancel the claim of defendants, who held under a lease for ninety-nine years executed by the president of the board of supervisors of said county on January 4, 1886. The main ground of invalidity urged against the lease is that the record of the proceedings by the board of supervisors, under which the section was appraised and leased, does not show that a majority of the resident heads of families petitioned for the leasing of the land as required by § 732, code 1880.

After stating the execution of the lease by the president of the hoard of supervisors, the bill recites that the conveyance is recorded in a designated book and page of the records of said county, and "a copy of the same is filed herewith marked 'Exhibit E,' and prayed to be taken and considered part of this bill." On the copy of the lease as it appears in the transcript, and just below the indorsement of filing for record, the following entry appears, purporting to be copied from the margin of the page of the record-book on which the lease is recorded:

"Satisfied, and lien canceled by authority this day recorded in book 'W W,' page 8, of the records of Bolivar county, this twenty-fourth April, 1891.

"T. R. McGUIRE, Clerk.

"W. A. SHELBY, D. C."

The bill was demurred to on grounds the nature of which appear from the opinion. Demurrer sustained; complainant appeals.

Decree reversed, demurrer overruled and cause remanded.

O. G. McGuire and N. B. Scott, for appellant.

The provision of § 4147 for the bringing of certain suits immediately, was not intended to limit the previous provisions of the section requiring the board to bring all necessary suits to establish title to school-lands.

The bill, on its face, shows that the lease is void. The board of supervisors acted under delegated authority, and any one dealing with the land was bound to take notice of the limit of its power. The jurisdiction conferred by § 732, code 1880, was special and limited, and the jurisdictional facts must appear of record. Ballard v. Davis, 31 Miss. 525; Hawkins v. Carroll, 50 Ib., 735. Hence, the failure of the record to show a petition by a majority of the resident beads of families for the lease of the land, renders the order void. See also 4 Am. & Eng. Enc. L., 386; Woodruff v. Okolona, 57 Miss. 806; Rogers v. Hahn, 63 Ib., 578; Murdock v. Chaffe, 67 Ib., 740.

Fred Clark, for appellees.

The demurrer was properly sustained. Section 4147, code 1892, does not contemplate that every one who holds under a lease of sixteenth sections shall be brought into court and compelled to litigate in respect thereto. The only purpose of the section is to require suits to be brought where the title is in doubt, and to have clouds removed, so that it could be told what lands are in the hands of the school-officials for sale. If the records already disclose a good title in the holder of the lease, no suit is necessary or authorized to establish the title. The bill clearly shows an indefeasible lease to defendants.

All the requirements of § 732, code 1880, appear to have been complied with. It is not necessary that the record affirmatively show a petition by a majority of the resident heads of families. It is sufficient that the petition shall actually be signed by a majority of the resident heads of families in the township. It is not charged in the bill that this was not done, and the courts will presume, in the absence of proof to the contrary, that the board of supervisors did this duty. Leavenworth v. Crittenden, 62 Miss. 573.

The bill shows that complainant received the purchase-money for the lease. It cannot now obtain cancellation without doing equity by returning the purchase-price.

Argued orally by Fred Clark, for appellees.

OPINION

WOODS, J.

1. The construction placed by counsel for appellees upon § 4147, code 1892, is unsound. The statute makes it the duty of the board of supervisors to institute all necessary suits to establish and confirm the title to the sixteenth section lands, and to fix the date of the expiration of any lease of the same, and then, in addition directs certain classes of these necessary suits to be instituted immediately. The necessary suits are not to be confined to cases in which persons claim any of said lands in fee-simple, or upon any other terms than that of a lease to expire at a fixed date, with absolute reversion to the state in trust, or when the title to said lands rests in parol, by destruction of records or otherwise, but suits in these cases must be begun at once. The...