Robinson v. Cross

• Decision Date: 13 February 1911
• Citation: 134 S.W. 954
• Parties: ROBINSON et al. v. CROSS.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

134 S.W. 954

ROBINSON et al. v. CROSS.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

February 13, 1911.

Appeal from Mississippi Chancery Court; Edward D. Robertson, Chancellor.

Suit by Ida Cross against Clyde Robinson and others. From the decree rendered, defendants appeal. Affirmed.

This is an action by Ida Cross against defendants Robinson and Johnson to recover the N. E. ¼ of S. E. ¼, section 2, township 15 N., range 12 E. It was an action of ejectment originally commenced in the circuit court, and then transferred to the chancery court upon motion of defendants to have their alleged title quieted. The appellee deraigns title from the government to the St. Francis levee district. Then, in a suit by the levee board against Charles Bowen, the land in controversy, with two other 40's, was sold for taxes. Geo. Cross was the purchaser, and by partition decree among his heirs the land in suit was allotted to appellee. She also set up title by adverse possession. Appellants deny that appellee acquired any title by adverse possession. They stand on their possession, having no title themselves, and challenge appellee to show title. The documentary and record evidence tended to prove the allegations of the complaint as to appellee's title. The court rendered a decree quieting the title in appellee and directing the ouster of appellants, if possession was not given to appellee within 30 days from the date of the decree. Appellants were granted an appeal by the clerk of this court, which they are duly prosecuting.

J. T. Coston, for appellants. W. J. Lamb, for appellee.

WOOD, J. (after stating the facts as above).

The appellants admit that the levee district obtained title to the land in controversy through tax forfeiture and decree of the Chancery court in 1894. The appellants admit, also, that a decree was rendered in 1896 against Charles Bowen purporting to condemn the land in controversy to be sold for levee taxes. These admissions put appellants out of court; for it is alleged, and not denied, that appellee obtained the title she here asserts through one who purchased at the sale under the decree of 1896. A bona fide purchaser at the sale under that decree certainly procured, at least, a prima facie title and one good against all the world until overcome by some one who could show a better title. It was such a title as would enable her to maintain a suit for possession as against one who had no title, as affirmatively shown by his exhibits. The record shows that the levee district by decree of chancery court in 1894 obtained title to the land under forfeiture of same for the taxes of 1870. Whether the levee district after 1894 sold the land to Charles Bowen the record nowhere discloses. But the presumption...