Hedley v. Leonard
| Decision Date | 17 October 1876 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | John Hedley v. Paul Leonard and others |
Heard October 10, 1876
Appeal in Chancery from Huron Circuit.
Complainant entitled to a decree requiring the defendants to release their claims, and to costs of both courts. Decree reversed, and a decree entered and case remanded for its enforcement.
George S. Engle and Hoyt Post, for complainant.
Richard Winsor and H. B. Carpenter, for defendants.
Hedley the complainant, on the 28th, day of April, 1867, received a settler's license from the commissioner of the state land office for the northeast quarter of the southeast quarter of section five, in town seventeen north, of range eleven east, in Huron county, under section one of "An act to provide for the settlement and drainage of the swamp lands by actual settlers," approved February 15, 1859, being section 3978 of the Compiled Laws. On the 13th day of June, 1873, he received a patent from the proper state authorities under that license and in evidence of his fulfillment of its conditions.
He files his bill in this cause to remove a cloud on his title created by a patent issued on the 5th day of October, 1872, to defendant Leonard, who mortgaged the land to defendant Richards, and conveyed it to defendant Gregory, who finally conveyed it to defendant Patterson. This patent, and the conveyances under it, he charges as having been fraudulently and illegally obtained, with notice and in violation of his rights.
The view we take of the case renders it unnecessary to consider all the issues of fact spread out in the testimony.
The issue of the license and its subsequent confirmation by patent preclude any inquiry into the facts of settlement and occupancy except by some one who has obtained a right under the statutes to question them. Unless the state brings proceedings to avoid its patent it must be presumed valid except as against such parties as are distinctly authorized to assail it. But it is claimed the earlier patent is entitled to the same presumptions. This is undoubtedly true, but its validity depends upon the jurisdiction of the authorities to issue it, and if issued in a case beyond their jurisdiction it is void. And it was beyond that jurisdiction, if the land, when it was issued, had been reserved from sale by a reservation which was still in force. The patent to Leonard was for an ordinary sale of lands in the market.
The statute under which the license was issued to Hedley provided that it might be vacated in certain specified cases. One was a failure to file certain proofs of settlement, which in this case were seasonably filed. A second was upon certain proofs of waste, which it is not claimed were made in this case. A third, which is the one here relied on, was the following, Sec. 3990 C. L.: "Any person, etc., who shall abandon and not reside upon the lands described in his license for two years, shall forfeit his license; and upon the filing with said commissioner the affidavit of the supervisor, or two responsible citizens of the township in which said lands are situated, that any licensee has abandoned said land, and has not resided upon the same for two years last past, said commissioner shall declare said license void, and may sell the said swamp lands the same as other swamp lands are sold, provided that no such licensee shall be deemed to have abandoned his land by reason of being engaged in the military or naval service of the United States."
On the 30th day of September, 1872, Arthur B. Wood and John Howarth made an affidavit concerning Hedley's lands, the only allegations pertinent to the inquiry being in the following language: "That John Hedley, who obtained license No. 4965 for said lands, has abandoned the same, and has not resided thereon for two years last past, and that he is not now, and has not for the last two years, been engaged in the military or naval service of the United States." Upon this affidavit and a supervisor's certificate that Wood and Howarth were responsible citizens of the township, a sale was made to Leonard as of lands in the market.
The record does not show, either in averment or proofs, that the commissioner of the land office ever made any declaration avoiding the license to Hedley. This, under the statute, was a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Davis v. Filer
...for one having greater rights, Johnson v. Towsley, 13 Wall. 72; Bisson v. Curry, 35 Ia. 72; Smith v. Vasbinder, 77 Pa. 127; Hedley v. Leonard, 35 Mich. 71; Bagnell Broderick, 13 Pet. 436; Minter v. Crommelin, 18 How. 87; Garland v. Wynn, 20 How. 8; Lytle v. Arkansas, 22 How. 193; Clements v......
-
Baker v. Jamison
... ... 48; Smelting Co. v. Kemp, 104 ... U.S. 636; Coleman v. Lord, 72 Texas, 288; Bangs ... v. Stephenson, 63 Mich. 661; Hedley v. Leonard, ... 35 Mich. 71; Biddle Boggs v. Merced Mining Co., 14 ... Cal. 279; Winona & St. P. R. Co. v. St. Paul & S. C. R ... Co., 26 ... ...
-
Heaton v. Jackson
...their rest, we are constrained to hold that they are residents of the territory sought to be transferred. It is held in Hedley v. Leonard, 35 Mich. 71: ‘A person is ordinarily held to reside [and reside means to actually occupy] on all the parcels of land which are actually appurtenant to h......
-
Romain v. Lewis
...Bros. and Wm. T. Mitchell for plaintiff in error relied on Boyce v. Danz, 29 Mich. 146; Attorney General v. Smith, 31 Mich. 364; Hedley v. Leonard, 35 Mich. 71. & Voorheis for defendant in error. Letters patent of lands can only be avoided in chancery (Bruckner's Lessee v. Lawrence, 1 Doug.......