Edward Hines Yellow Pine Trustees v. State ex rel. Moore

• Citation: 134 Miss. 533,98 So. 158
• Decision Date: 17 December 1923
• Docket Number: 23309,23390
• Parties: EDWARD HINES YELLOW PINE TRUSTEES et al. v. STATE ex rel. MOORE, LAND COM'R. STATE, ex rel. MOORE, LAND COM'R, v. EDWARD HINES YELLOW PINE TRUSTEES et al
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi

98 So. 158

134 Miss. 533

EDWARD HINES YELLOW PINE TRUSTEES et al. v. STATE ex rel. MOORE, LAND COM'R. STATE, ex rel. MOORE, LAND COM'R, v. EDWARD HINES YELLOW PINE TRUSTEES et al

Nos. 23309, 23390

Supreme Court of Mississippi

December 17, 1923

On suggestion of error. Suggestion of error overruled.

For former opinion, see 97 So. 552, 132 Miss. 334.

Suggestion of error overruled.

OPINION

SMITH, C. J.

Two propositions are particularly stressed on the suggestion of error:

(1) That in applying the rule that a "patent" to public land carries with it the presumption that all of the legal prerequisites necessary to its issuance have been "complied with," to the absence from the record of the list of lands required by section 7, chapter 34, Laws of 1852, to be furnished by the secretary of state to the commissioners of the Southern district of Pearl River, we have necessarily overruled Hardy v. Hartman, 65 Miss. 504, 4 So. 545, wherein it was held that a patent issued to the Pearl River Improvement & Navigation Company was void, for the reason that it did not appear from the record that the bond required of the Pearl River Improvement & Navigation Company by the statute under which the patent was issued had been executed.

(2) That the distinction drawn in our former opinion between the case at bar and Tynes v. Southern Pine Co., 100 Miss. 129, 54 So. 885, is unsound.

We are not here concerned with the correctness of the decision in Hardy v. Hartman, supra, and the rule there applied, whether correct or not, to titles derived through patents issued to the Pearl River Improvement & Navigation Company has become a rule of property and will not be now departed from. It may be conceded for the sake of the argument that the distinction hereinbefore made between the case at bar and the Tynes Case, supra, is unsound. Nevertheless that case is not controlling here, for the reason that the court was not there called on, and did not take into consideration the provision of the statute requiring the secretary of state to furnish the commissioners with a list of lands to be sold.

Overruled.