Joel Wright, Plaintiff In Error v. Schuyler Mattison

• Decision Date: 01 December 1855
• Citation: 15 L.Ed. 280,59 U.S. 50,18 How. 50
• Parties: JOEL WRIGHT, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. SCHUYLER H. MATTISON
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

59 U.S. 50

18 How. 50

15 L.Ed. 280

JOEL WRIGHT, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. SCHUYLER H. MATTISON.

December Term, 1855

THIS case was brought up by writ of error from the circuit court of the United States for the district of Illinois.

The case is stated in the opinion of the court.

It was argued by Mr. Browning, for the plaintiff in error, and Mr. William, for the defendant in error.

Mr. Browning said that he felt some embarrassment in consequence of the decision of this court in Moore v. Brown, 11 How. 434; but he thought that a different construction had since been given to the statute by the supreme court of Illinois, in Irving v. Brownell, 11 Illinois, 402, 414. These cases were then discussed.

Wright also claimed under an auditor's deed in 1833, which was within the protection of the act of 1835, and which would have furnished a sufficient defence, if he had been in possession for seven years. Whether he was so or not, was a question of fact for the jury. But the court withdrew it from them. Wright had clearly had possession of one and a half acres, and yet the court decided that he was entitled to the protection of the statute of 1835, or that of 1839.

Mr. Browning then contended that Wright was within the act of 1839, holding under claim and color of title made in good faith, and cited Cro. Jac. 122; 9 Watts, 73; 5 Barr, 300; 3 Serg. & Rawle, 298; 6 Barr, 325; 8 ibid. 506; 7 S. & R. 173; 2 Caines, 183; 4 Johns. 202; 9 Cow. 557; 4 Paige, 199; 6 Johns. 47; 16 ibid. 299; 18 ibid. 44, 360; 13 ibid. 119; 3 Conn. 246, 402; 4 Georgia, 115; 4 Hayw. 185; 5 ibid. 288; 5 Pet. 402; 11 ibid. 41; 10 ibid. 442; 8 ibid. 244, 253.

Mr. Browning then commented on Irving v. Brownell, admitting that the court said in that case that the words, 'claim and color of title made in good faith,' in the statute of 1839, meant title of higher character and superior dignity to that intended by the words, 'connected title in law or equity, deducible of record,' in the statute of 1835. But he contended that this dictum was virtually overruled by Davis v. Easley et al. 13 Illinois, 192, 199; and then cited cases to show that the title of Wright was acquired in good faith. 16 Johns. 299; 8 Pet. 253; 9 Cow. 558.

Mr. Williams contended that the acts of 1835 and 1839 require occupancy under a title prim a facie good; the first-named act requiring residence on the land, and the other the payment of taxes, and that the claim of title be made in good faith. It is not denied that this construction is according to the fair import of the terms of these acts, nor that it is the settled construction of the Kentucky limitation law, from which the terms, 'a connected title in law or equity, deducible of record,' &c., are copied, as well as of similar acts in Kentucky, Louisiana, and Tennessee. Moore v. Brown et al. 11 How. 424; Skyle's Heirs v. King's Heirs, 2 A. K. Marsh. 387; Frique v. Hopkins et al. 4 Martin, N. S. 224; Barlow v. Bill, 4 Bibb, 106; Clay v. Miller, ibid. 461; Young v. Murray, 3 A. K. Marsh. 58; Powell v. Harrison, 2 Pet. 241; Walker v. Turner, 5 ibid. 668; Poage's Heirs v. Chinn's Heirs, 4 Dana, 50.

He then argued to show that the following consequences did not result from his construction of the laws, as was contended for by the opposite counsel:——

1. That it renders the acts altogether inoperative.

2. That it was obviously the intention of the legislature to protect the possession of a person purchasing upon the faith of conveyances made by the officers of the State who were authorized to sell and convey lands.

3. That these acts were intended to protect actual settlers and cultivators, whose titles were liable to exception, against speculators having better titles.

Mr. Justice DANIEL delivered the opinion of the court.

The questions determined by the circuit court, whose decision we are called on to review, arose upon the construction of two statutes of the State of Illinois, which limit the right of action against the possessors of lands, held by purchasers in virtue of sales and conveyances under the authority of the State, for the non-payment of taxes.

The provisions of the statutes in question are as follow:——

January 17, 1835. Sect. 1. 'That, hereafter, no person who now has, or hereafter may have, any right of entry into any lands of which any person may be possessed by actual residence thereon, having a connected title in law or equity, deducible of record from this State or the United States, or from any public officer authorized by the laws of the State to sell such lands for the non-payment of taxes, or from any sheriff, marshal, or other person authorized to sell such lands on execution, or under any order, judgment, or decree of any court of record, shall make any entry therein except within seven years from the time of such possession being taken; but when the possessor shall acquire such title after taking such possession, the limitation shall begin to run from the time of acquiring title.'

By the statute of 1839 it is enacted, 'That, hereafter, every person in the actual possession of lands or tenements, under claim and color of title made in good faith, and who shall, for seven successive years after the passage of this act, continue in such possession, and shall also during the said time pay all the taxes legally assessed on such lands or tenements, shall be held and adjudged to be the legal owner of said lands or tenements, to the extent and according to the purport of his or her paper title. All persons holding under such possession, by purchase, devise, or descent, before said seven years shall have expired, and shall continue such possession, and continue to pay the taxes as aforesaid, so as to complete the possession and payment of the taxes for the term aforesaid, shall be entitled to the benefit of this section.'

In this case in the circuit court, which was an action of ejectment, the plaintiff's lessee, the defendant in error here, exhibited in proof a release from the widow of the patentee from the United States, of the premises in question; also deeds of conveyance from the heirs of the patentee, with the exception of one of those heirs, who was a minor, and whose estate or interest in the premises there seems to have been no attempt to transfer. The lessee of the plaintiff further proved the possession of the premises by the defendant at the commencement of the action on the 15th of July, 1851.

The defendant, to maintain the issue on his part, offered to read in evidence to the jury a deed of the 20th of December, 1823, from the auditor of public accounts of the State of Illinois, to Nathaniel Wright and Joel Wright, for the land in controversy, reciting the public sale of those lands by the auditor, in pursuance of the several acts of the general assembly of the State, and of the act entitled, 'An act for levying and collecting a tax on land and other property, approved February 18, 1823,' and the bidding off the said lands to Nathaniel Wright and Joel Wright, as the best bidders, for the sum of eleven dollars and six cents, being the tax and costs due thereon for the years 1821 and 1822.

In connection with the aforegoing deed from the auditor, the defendant offered to read in evidence to the jury a deed, properly executed and recorded, from the said Nathaniel Wright to the defendant, Joel Wright, for the northeast quarter of section thirty-four, (the premises claimed;) and offered further to prove to the jury, that the said defendant had been in the actual possession of the premises for more than seven years next preceding the commencement of this suit, and had paid all the taxes assessed thereupon; and the defendant stated by his counsel, that the purpose of offering the evidence was to secure to the defendant the benefit and protection of the seven years' limitation laws of 1835 and 1839.

To the introduction of this evidence by the defendant, the plaintiff objected, assigning for his objection, the following causes:——

1. That the defendant had neither proved, nor offered to prove, that the requisitions of the revenue law of 1823 had been complied with, prior to the sale of said land for taxes as stated in the auditor's deed, and that the deed was not prim a facie evidence of these facts.

2. That said deed was void upon its face.

The court excluded the evidence thus tendered by the defendant, who excepted to the opinion of the court.

The defendant next offered in evidence a deed from the auditor of public accounts to the defendant, dated on the 10th day of January, 1833, in which it is stated, that in conformity with all the requisitions of the several laws in such cases made and provided, the auditor had, on the 11th day of January, 1831, exposed to sale a certain tract of land, being the northeast quarter of section thirty-four, in township seven north, in range four east of the fourth principal meridian, for the sum of one dollar and eighty-two cents, being the amount of the tax for the year 1830, with the interest and costs chargeable on the said hands; and that the said Joel Wright had offered to pay the aforesaid sum for the whole of the said land; and the said Wright having paid the said sum into the treasury of the State, the auditor thereby granted and conveyed to the said Wright the whole of the northeast quarter of section thirty-four as above described, (being the land in controversy,) subject to the right of redemption, as provided by law.

This last-mentioned deed from the auditor was admitted in evidence without objection, and as well as the former deed from the auditor to Nathaniel and Joel Wright, bearing date on the 20th of December, 1823, was shown to have been regularly recorded in the proper recording office.

By a statement of facts agreed between the counsel, it was in proof on the trial, that Joel Wright, claiming that he and his brother, Nathaniel, were owners and tenants in common in fee-simple of the land in controversy, took possession of it in...