Southern Pine Co. v. Hall

• Decision Date: 20 November 1900
• Docket Number: 815.
• Citation: 105 F. 84
• Parties: SOUTHERN PINE CO. v. HALL.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

105 F. 84

SOUTHERN PINE CO. v. HALL.

No. 815.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

November 20, 1900

This case was tried in the circuit court on the following agreement, signed and filed September 2, 1898:

'It is hereby agreed, as a matter of fact, upon the submission of this cause by the undersigned solicitors, respectively for complainant and defendant and cross complainant and respondent, that all technical matters in respect to pleadings and proceedings shall be waived; that the matters alleged in the cross bill shall be deemed to be facts in issue without the necessity of a formal answer hereto; and that the affirmative matters alleged in the answer to the original bill shall be deemed as being put at issue without a replication. It is further agreed, as matter of fact that the lands in controversy were donated to the state of Mississippi, as stated in the original bill and answer, as swamp and overflowed lands. It is further agreed that whatever title was acquired from the state of Mississippi by the corporation designated as the Pearl River Improvement & Navigation Company came by regular conveyances to the defendant herein to the original bill. It is further agreed that if the patent made by the governor and secretary of state to said corporation together with the subsequent acts of the legislature and the other facts herein recited, was insufficient to pass the title, and that the title remained in the state, and that the state was not estopped to thereafter assert title, then that the complainant in the original bill has duly acquired said title through persons who purchased the same of the state, as alleged in the original bill. It is further agreed that the only bond attempted to be furnished by or on behalf of said corporation under an act of the legislature entitled 'An act to incorporate the Pearl River Improvement and Navigation Company and for other purposes' (Acts 1871, pp. 482-487), which became a law on the 8th day of April, A.D. 1871, is that set forth in the report of the case of Hardy v. Hartman, 65 Miss. 506, 4 So. 545, and that the said copy shall be deemed and treated as having been read in evidence as the original bond; that said bond was filed by the Pearl River Improvement & Navigation Company in the office of the secretary of state prior to May 12, 1871. It is further agreed that said bond was by the governor approved on May 12, 1871, as the bond required under said act, and thereupon a patent was issued under said act in the name of the state, as otherwise provided by said act, to said company, which said patent was issued under the great seal of the state, signed by the governor and countersigned by the secretary of state, upon the 7th day of June, 1871. It is further agreed that after the patent was issued to the Pearl River Company as above stated, and on, to wit, the 20th day of November, 1872, the said company sold and conveyed said lands to M. S. Baldwin for a sufficient and valuable consideration in cash then paid by him; that said Baldwin had no actual notice of the nature or character of the bond filed, but bought the same upon the faith of the state's patent exhibited to him before and at the time of the purchase, and upon the advice of counsel learned in the law that said title was good, and that said patent vested same in said Pearl River Company; that thereafter, on, to wit, the 17th day of April, 1873, said Baldwin sold and conveyed said lands to Israel Hall, who on the 5th day of November, 1874, conveyed to defendant, his wife; that said Hall paid to said Baldwin for said lands a full and valuable consideration, to wit, the equivalent of $40,000 in cash; that said Hall had no actual notice of the nature or character of the bond filed by the Pearl River Company, but bought said lands upon the faith of the patent from the state to the Pearl River Company, and the deed from such company to Baldwin, which said patent and deed were exhibited to him before and at the time of said purchase, and upon the advice of counsel learned in the law that the said patent and deed vested the title in said Baldwin; that said lands shortly after said sale to the Pearl River Company were listed for state and county taxation, and that defendant and her grantors have paid the taxes thereon from time same were listed up to the institution of this suit; that said patent to Baldwin, and the deeds from Baldwin to Hall, and Shall to defendant, were all duly recorded in the proper office shortly after execution, and long before the issuance of the patents under which complainant in the original bill claims. It is further agreed that if the court shall hold, in the above state of facts, that defendant, Olivia B. Hall, by virtue of said patent and conveyances, and with the facts above recited, and by virtue of said act of April 8, 1871, and the other acts of the legislature of the state of Mississippi passed in relation to the subject-matter, became, was, or is vested with the title to said lands, then a decree shall be rendered by this honorable court dismissing the original bill and canceling the title of complainant therein. If, however, upon the record above made, and upon the several acts of the legislature in reference to the subject-matter in dispute, the court shall find that the said Olivia B. Hall has no title to said land, then a decree shall be entered in favor of complainant in the original bill, as prayed therein, leaving to be determined only the question of charging the lands in controversy with the payment of taxes paid out by defendant and cross complainant, which matter is to be submitted to a master after the determination of the other issues. It is further agreed that complainant is not to be prejudiced by describing the document copied into said report of case of Hardy v. Hartman as a bond; the purpose being to submit to the court the question whether or not, under all the facts above recited, and the law in reference thereto, said bond was the bond required by said act, whether title passed by the issuance of said patent, and, if not, whether the state was, by the facts recited, the approval of said bond, and various laws thereafter enacted, estopped to thereafter assert title to said lands. It is further agreed that the lands in controversy are of the value of ten thousand dollars and upward. It is further agreed that nothing was done by the Pearl River Improvement & Navigation Company in furtherance of the purpose of public improvement mentioned in the act of 1871, and that neither said company, nor any one on its behalf, ever returned the patents it received, and that no money was paid as provided for by the act of April 19, 1873, to the state by said company, nor by any other person. It is further agreed that, if the same can be of any avail, defendant and cross complainant shall be deemed and treated as having pleaded specially the said act of April 19, 1873. In case the court shall be of opinion that the act of 1873, as published, cut off the title of the state as to the lands conveyed by said company before that date, complainant (reserves) the right to show that in point of fact said act, as published, was never a law (of) the state.

'T. M. Miller & G. W. Ellis, 'Solt'rs for Compl't. 'E. J. Bowers 'Solicitor for Def't and Cross Compl't.' The sections of the act of the legislature of Mississippi passed March 22, 1871, which relate to the bond to be given under the act, are as follows:

'Sec. 5. Be it further enacted, that said company shall expend in the improvement of said river and in the navigation thereof, ten per centum of the first year, of the value of the property referred to in the preceding section, and that the whole value of said property shall be expended for the purpose specified in this charter within five years from the passage of this act. That said company shall, within sixty days after the passage of this act, file in the office of the secretary of state a bond in the sum of fifty thousand dollars, with two or more good securities, who shall make oath that they are worth the penalty of the bond over and above all liabilities and exemptions, which securities shall reside in this state, to be approved by the governor, and upon the approval and filing of said bond, said secretary of state shall from time to time, as demanded by said company, make out a patent or patents for said land to said company, which patent or patents shall be signed by the governor fee-simple of said lands in this company: provided, nothing in this section shall be construed as to require patents to issue for any land heretofore sold to legal purchasers: provided further, that no lands shall be disposed of or sold by said company for a less sum than twenty-five cents per acre.'

'Sec. 8. Be it further enacted, that the governor may at any time require the president of said company to make report to him of the amount of money expended in the improvement of Pearl river, which reports shall be made under oath, and shall set forth all particulars relating to said improvement; and when it becomes apparent to the governor that said company has not complied with the conditions of this act, and that they are not appropriating money derived from the sale of the land, as hereinbefore provided, it shall become his duty to commence suit on bond of said company, in his own name, for the use of said Pearl River district.'

The bond which was given under the act is as follows:

'Pearl River Improvement and Navigation Company.

'Know all men by these presents, that we, Walter P. Billings, Samuel A. Vose, A. Warner, O. C. French, are held and firmly bound unto the state of Mississippi in the sum of fifth thousand dollars, the payment of which, well and truly to be made, we bind

...