State v. United States Coal & Oil Co

• Decision Date: 20 April 1920
• Docket Number: (No. 3686.)
• Citation: 103 S.E. 50
• Court: West Virginia Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE. v. UNITED STATES COAL & OIL CO. et al.

103 S.E. 50

STATE.

v.UNITED STATES COAL & OIL CO. et al.

(No. 3686.)

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

April 20, 1920.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Appeal from Circuit Court, Logan County.

Proceeding by the State against the United States Coal & Oil Company and W. T. Vance and others to sell forfeited tracts for failure to have them entered on the land books, with petition by the United States Coal & Oil Company claiming title. Cause referred to a commissioner, and decree, according to his findings, in favor of the United States Coal & Oil Company, and dismissing the State's bill, and W. T. Vance and others appeal. Affirmed.

Butts & Deegan, of Logan, and Maynard F. Stiles and Blue & McCabe, all of Charleston, for appellants.

Chafin & Bland, of Logan, for the State.

WILLIAMS, P. This is a proceeding by the state under chapter 105 of the Code (sees. 4433-4454) to sell two tracts of 20 and 32 acres of land, respectively, alleged to be forfeited in the name of Washington Vance for failure, for 5 consecutive years since 1869, to have the same entered on the land books. The heirs of Washington Vance, now deceased, were made parties defendant and answered the bill, admitting the forfeiture, and praying that they might be permitted to redeem the land. The United States Coal & Oil Company also filed a petition, claiming title under section 3, article 13, of the Constitution, by virtue of a deed from George F. Miller and others to the Island Creek Coal Company, a corporation, and a deed from said Island Creek Coal Company to the petitioner, made in 1902 and its payment of the taxes thereon, and actual possession of the land since said time, which is a period of more than 10 years. Later said company filed its amended petition, claiming said land under two other deeds, one from Thomas H. Harvey et al., dated the 20th of June, 1903, and another from John F. Aldridge, dated the 24th of October, 1902. The cause was referred to a commissioner to take evidence and make a report of certain matters. He did so, and reported that the two tracts were forfeited in the name of Washington Vance, and that the petitioner was entitled to claim the benefit of the forfeiture. Exceptions were taken to the commissioner's report by the heirs of Washington Vance, which the court overruled, and decreed, according to the finding of the commissioner, that petitioner, the United States Coal & Oil Company, had title to said two tracts of land in fee, and dismissed the state's bill, and from that decree this appeal was taken by the heirs of Washington Vance.

It appears from evidence taken before the commissioner that the two tracts of land lie on Middle fork of Island creek in Logan county and were patented in 1879 to Washington Vance, assignee of one A. Lawson, warrantor under the commonwealth of Virginia. The deeds under which the United States Coal & Oil Company claims title cover a large boundary of land, and some of them are shown to embrace the forfeited tracts, and it claims it has been in possession and paid taxes on all the land covered by his deeds from and including the year 1903, down to and including the year 1914. There is really no controversy respecting its title to the 20-acre tract, but counsel for appellants insist that it is not proven that said company has ever had actual possession of the tract of 32 acres, which the evidence shows was uninclosed, unimproved, and covered with timber. On the other hand, counsel for said company contend that it has had possession of other portions of its large boundary of land, which embraces said 32-acre tract, under a quitclaim deed from Thomas H. Harvey and others covering its entire boundary of land on Island creek, and that possession of a part of its boundary extends to the whole, and fulfills the requirement of section 3, article 13, of the Constitution; in other words, that its claim under said deed as color of title, and actual possession of a part of its boundary, and payment of the taxes on the whole thereof since 1903, is sufficient to vest in it the state's...