Kirby v. Lewis
Decision Date | 04 June 1889 |
Citation | 39 F. 66 |
Parties | KIRBY et al. v. LEWIS et al. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Arkansas |
F. W Compton, for plaintiffs.
Dodge & Johnson and Scott & Jones, for defendants.
This is an action of ejectment. It was originally brought against numerous defendants to recover 201.52 acres of land comprising a considerable portion of the city of Texarkana and its suburbs. The action has been dismissed as to all the lands except a part of the S. 1/2 of the S.W. fractional 1/4 of section 30, township 15 S., range 28 W., and as to all the defendants except John V. Lewis, William P. Anderson, Frank H. Baldwin, and Walter H. Field, who claim title to the parcel of the S. 1/2 of the S.W. fractional 1/4 described in the amended complaint. The case can best be understood by stating the defendants' title first. The S.W. fractional 1/4 of section 30, township 15 S., range 28 W., containing 81.52 acres, was entered by the Cairo & Fulton Railroad Company at the United States land-office at Washington, Ark December 6, 1856, and was patented to the railroad company July 1, 1859. In the certificate of entry and first patent there was a mistake in the description of the land purchased, in this: it was described as the W. 1/2 of the S.W. fractional 1/4, which only included a small fraction on the state line of less than two acres, whereas the United States sold and the railroad company purchased and paid for, as shown by the plats, the S.W. fractional 1/4, containing 81.52 acres. This error was subsequently corrected, and a patent issued for the S.W. fractional 1/4 May 1, 1884, which, by operation of law, as well as by its terms, relates back to the original entry.
The defendants are the successors and grantees of the Cairo & Fulton Railroad Company, and own all the right and title to the land that passed under the patent of the United States to that company. The practice act of this state requires the plaintiff in an action of ejectment 'to set forth in his complaint all deeds and other written evidences of title on which he relies for the maintenance of his suit,' and to file copies of the same. In their complaint the plaintiffs rely for the maintenance of their suit on a deed for the land in controversy, executed to them by the commissioner of state lands, which reads as follows:
It will be observed that the deed from the commissioner of state lands to the plaintiffs recites that the lands described therein are 'a portion of the swamp and overflowed lands selected by the state' under the swamp land grant 'which still remains unapproved and unpatented to the state,' and that the deed is made 'in pursuance of the provisions' of the act approved March 18, 1879. That act reads as follows:
It will be observed that the power of the commissioner of state lands to sell under this act is limited to 'lands which have been and which may hereafter be selected by any authorized agent of the state to make selections of swamp and overflowed lands;' and it is recited in the deed that the land in controversy had been so selected. On the 14th of December, 1875, the general assembly of the state passed an act, the preamble of which reads as follows:
'Whereas, under the provisions of the act of congress approved September 28, 1850, entitled 'An act to enable the state of Arkansas and other states to reclaim the swamp lands within their limits,' a large amount of lands were selected which were afterwards disposed of by the United States; and whereas, upon proper proof that any lands so selected came within the provisions of the grant aforesaid, the United States government will refund to the state, in case of cash entry, the amount of purchase money, and an equivalent in lands for the tracts located with military, county warrants, or script; therefore,' etc.
This act provides for the appointment of 'an agent whose duty it shall be to procure the necessary proof in each and every case of the kind above recited, and make a final settlement with the United States government on behalf of the state. ' The seventh section of this act confirms the titles of the purchasers to all swamp lands purchased from the United States after the passage of the swamp-land grant, in these words:
If the land in controversy was swamp land, the title to which vested in the state under the swamp-land grant, the state, by this act, relinquished and transferred her title thereto to the railroad company, who purchased it from the United States. The plaintiffs, perceiving this to be the effect of the act, if the land was 'selected' swamp land, now say that the recitals in their deed that the land is 'a portion of the swamp and overflowed land selected by the state,' and that the deed is made 'in pursuance of the provisions of' the act approved March 18, 1879, are mistakes, and ask the court to reject them in the consideration of the case. But the plaintiffs cannot reject the recitals in their deed. In their complaint they rest their right to recover on this deed, which is made a part of the complaint. There is no suggestion in the complaint that the recitals in the deed are false, or that the plaintiffs claim title to the land on any other or different grounds than those recited in their deed. The recitals conform to the plaintiffs' application to purchase. The recitals...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States v. Lee Wilson & Co.
... ... A. Tellier, of Little Rock, Ark., ... Special Asst. Attys. Gen., for the United States ... Coleman ... & Lewis, of Little Rock, Ark., for defendant ... TRIEBER, ... District Judge (after stating the facts as above) ... It is ... The patent to the state is ... 'according to the official plats of survey, containing ... 14,526.11 acres. ' In Kirby v. Lewis (C.C.) 39 ... F. 66, 70, Judge Caldwell held: ... "The ... recitals in a deed constitute a part of the title. It is as ... ...
-
McConnell v. Arkansas Brick & Manufacturing Co.
...4 Ark. 302, 367; 37 Ark. 574, 577, 578; 152 U.S. 211; 72 F. 46; 72 Me. 104; 6 Mont. 379; 12 P. 851; 9 N.M. 611; S. C. 58 P. 398; 39 F. 66; 61 N.Y.S. 263; 137 U.S. 202, 216. Cf. 27 Ark. 278; 33 Ark. 17; 40 Ark. 200; 4 Ark. 302, 367. The alleged contracts are unreasonable, and the plaintiff b......
- Chapman & Dewey Land Company v. Bigelow
-
Batcheller v. Commonwealth Ex Rel. Rector And Visitors Of Univ. Of Va.
...of common knowledge, of public record, of government, etc., and which would seem under the authorities to be permissible. See Kirby v. Lewis, C.C., 39 F. 66; City of St. Louis v. Nichaus, 236 Mo. 8, 139 S. W. 450; State v. Cull, 32 Ariz. 532, 260 P. 1023; Sheridan Coal Co. v. Harnesberger, ......