Abbildungen der Seite


[ocr errors]

Welch to A. W. Reynolds; Rorer, N. L., , Va. 474; and in Fidelity Ins., T. & S. D. Co. and A. W. Reynolds and Welch to the V. Shenandoah Val. R. Co., 32 W. Va. 244, company,--all nanie the nominal consid. 259, 9 S. E. Rep. 180, it is said that “what. eration of one dollar. The deed of George ever is sufficient to put a person on in. W. Belcher to N. L. Reynolds purports to quiry is considered as conveying notice; bave been executed in consideration of for the law imputes a personal knowledge $66.10, and of George W. Belcher to Rorer of a fact of which the exercise of common in consideration of $6,393.75,-$500 in cash, prudence might have apprised him. When and $5,893.75 in deferred payments.

a subsequent purchaser has actual notice The deed from Chrispianos to George that the property in question is incumW. recites a consideration of $75 "and oth- bered or affected, he is charged construct. er valuable considerations. This was a ively with notice of all the facts and ingeneral warranty decd, and so was that strunients to the knowledge of which he to Rorer. The others were special war would have been led by an inquiry into ranties only.

the incumbrance or other circumstance None of the original deeds in appellant'n affecting the property of which he had nochain appear to have been produced un tice. the hearing, though certified copies were Lord HARDWICKE observed in Le Neve attached to the pleadings, but no inde v. Le Xere, Amb. 436, 3 Atk. 6 16, 1 Ves. Sr. pendent evidence was adduced of the pay- | 64, “that the taking of a legal estate, ment by any of the defendants of any after notice of a prior right, makes a permoney whatever. As against complain son a mala fide purchaser ;” and the notes ant, the recitals in these deeds cannot be to that case in 2 White & T. Lead. ('as. 109, relied on as proof of the paynient of the discuss at length the doctrine of knowl. purchase money. Boone v. Chiles, 10 Pet. edge, actual notice, express or implied, 177; Flagg r. Mann, 2 Sum. 487; Kyles and constructive notice, with abundant v. Tait, 6 Grat. 44; Warren v. Syme, 7 W. citation of authority. The conclusion of Va. 474; Brown v. Welch, 18 Ill. 343; Lloyd the American editor is that actual notice v. Lynch, 28 Pa. St. 419.

embraces all degrees and grades of eviApart from this, we hold appellant dence, from the most direct and positive chargeable with notice. The rule is thus proof to the slightest circumstances from stated by the Virginia court of appeals in which a jury would be warranted in inBurwell's Adm'rs v. Fauber, 21 Grat. 446, ferring notice, while constructive notice 463: “Purcbasers are bound to use a due is a legal inference froin established facts, degree of caution in making their pur. and, like other legal presumptious, does chases, or they will not be entitled to not admit of dispute. protection. Caveat emptor is one of the * Mr. Justice Story, in his work on Equityo best-settled maxims of the law, and ap- | Jurisprudence, (section 399,) adopts the plies exclusively to a purchaser. He must language of Chief Baron EYRE in Plumb take care, and make due inquiries, or he v. Fluitt, 2 Anstr. 432, 438, that constructmay not be a bona fide purchaser. He is | ive notice is in its nature no more than bound not only by actual, but also by evidence of notice, the presumption of constructive notice, which is the same in which is so violent that the court will not its effect as actual potice. He must look allow even of its being controverted. to the title papers under which he buys, In later editions of that work, Judge and is charged with notice of all the facts Redfield (11th Ed. § 410a) says that the appearing upon their face, or to the term “constructive notice” “is applied in. knowledge of which anything there ap- discriminately to such uotice as is not pearing will conduct him. He has no susceptible of being explained or rebutted, right to shut his eyes or his ears to the in and to that which may be. It seems more let of information, and then say he is a appropriate to the fornier kind of notices. bona fide purchaser without notice.” It will then include notice by_the registry Jones v. Smith, 1 Hare, 43, 55; Le Nere r. and notice by lis pendens. But such po. Le Neve, 2 White & T. Lead. Cas. 127; | tice as depends upon possession, upon and Brush v. Ware, 15 Pet. 93, 114,--are knowledge of an agent, upun facts to put cited.

one upon inquiry, and some other similar * In Mundy v. Vawter, 3 Grat. 518, relied matters, although often called constructon by appellant, the registry of a deed of ire notice, is rather implied notice, or "all the estate, both real and personal, to presumptive notice, subject to be rebutwbich the said James was in any manner ted or explained. Constructive notice is entitled in law or in equity," was held not thus a conclusive presumption or a preto be notice in point of law to a subse-sumption of law, while implied potice is a quent purchaser of the existence of the mere presumption of fact." deed, nor would notice in point of fact of Vice-Chancellor WIGRAM in Jones v. such existence and contents affect suchSmith, supra, laid it down that cases in purchaser, unless he had further notice which constructive notice had been estab. that the land purchased by him was em lished resolved themselves into two braced by the provision of the deed; "and classes: First, those in which the party the proof of such notice, whether direct cbarged had actual notice that the propor positive or circumstantial and presump erty in dispute was in some way affected, tive, inust be such as to affect the con and the court has thereupon bound bim science of the purchaser, and is not suffi with constructive notice of facts to a cient if it merely puts him upon inquiry, knowledge of which he would have been but must be so strong and clear as to led by an inquiry into the matters affecte fix on bim the imputation of mala fides. ing the property, of which he had actual But the latter branch of this ruling was notice; and, secondly, those where the disapproved of in Warren v. Syme, 7 W. court has been satisfied that the party

[ocr errors][ocr errors]


charged had designedly abstained from the 200 acres, and that deed described Wit. inquiry for the purpose of avoiding notice. ten's line as running from the two birches If there is not actual notice that the up Simmons creek “with Miller's line." property is in some way affected, so that That deed could not be read without disthe case does not fall within the first class, covering that something had been onit. and no fraudulent turning away from a ted therefrom; and this is the more ap. knowledge of facts which the res gestae parent since it is shown by the evidence would suggest to a prudent mind, or gross that the distance by a straight line from and culpable negligence, so as to bring it the two birches to the six chestnuts was within the second, then the doctrine of 328 poles, while it is also clear that a line constructive notice would not apply. running S., 55 W., from the two birches

Each case must be governed by its own would not reach the six chestnuts, but peculiar circumstances, and in that in would run away from them, so that both hand we think appellant either had act. by distance and by course it was evident ual knowledge or actual notice of such that an error had been committed, and facts and circumstances as by the exercise what that error was seems to us to be of due diligence would bave led it to obvious to any candid joind. Having knowledge of complainant's rights, and actual notice to this extent, appellant was that, if this were not so, then its igno- | put upon inquiry, and inquiry would have rance was the result of such gross and cul- conducted at once to the unrecorded deed. pable negligence that it would be equally So far as the defendant George W. Belbound.

cher is concerned, the evidence is quite The deed of George W. Belcher to N. L. convincing of knowledge on his part. Reynolds conveyed the undivided five-Belcher had resided near the land appar. eigbths of 75 acres, by a description read- ently all his life. In October, 1882, when the iog as follows: “Beginning attwo birches Barcroft tract of land, which we underon the bank of Simmons creek in a line of staid to be the same as Obediah Belcher's a survey of twenty-five hundred acres con. home place, was surveyed for the South. veyed by James Hector to Obediah Bel West Virginia Improvement Company, ono cber, and a corner to the William H. Witten Crockett was assisting in the survey, and land, and with a line of the said Witten George W. Belcher and others were presland N., 50° 40' W., 85.40 chains, up Sim. ent; and Crockett testified, without obmons creek, topping a ridge at 23 chains, jection, that at that time, when they got and crossing hollows and points of said down to the corner on the creek, he asked ridge, to six dead chestnuts on said ridge, Belcher whose land that was adjoining, a coroer to A. G. Belcher's land." The and he said “Mr. Witten's;” and the wit. deed of George W. Belcher to P. H. Rorer pess furtber said that since George W. purported to convey “ three-eightbs (%) un. Belcher set up a claim tu the land in condivided of a certain tract or parcel of land troversy Belcher told hiin" that he never lying on Simmons creek, a branch of Blue. knew he bad any land there until Mr. stone river, in the county of Mercer, and Welch and Mr. Reynolds found it out,-as state of West Virginia, it being the same I remember he said, by running the lines tract, five-eighths () undivided of which and plotting." He also stated upon has heretofore been conveyed by the said cross-examination: “He told me, I think, parties of the first part to N. L. Reynolds, that Capt. Welch got him to write what and containing, by recent survey, by he would take for his claim in there,-i. e., horizontal measurement, one bundred and to Chrispianos Belcher, his brother. beventy and 5-10 acres, and bounded as *Henry Sadler testified that in 1866, when follows: Beginning at two birches on the a part of his purchase from Obediah Bel. bank of Simnions creek, N.,50° 26' W., 80.33 cher was surveyed, George W. Belcher was chalds, up Siminons creek, crossing ridges along and marked the lines; and “there and spurs, to six dead chestnuts on ridge, was something said that if we got too far corner to A. G. Belcher.” The other con from the creek we would get on Witten's veyances refer to these descriptions.

land." The witness added that Simmons When Obediah and Robert D. Belcher creek was recognized by himself as the bought the 4,000 acres of James Hector line between his land and that of William they agreed to a division whereby Robert H. Witten. D. Belcher took 1,500 and Oberliah 2,560 W. S. Witten testified that on December

The deed of Hector to Robert D. 25, 1884, he met George W. Belcher, and Belcher for the 1,500 acres is in the rerord. "asked him what land it was he had sold, The north line of this tract ran from the (as Mr. Burkholder told me there was Wilson Cary Nicholas line N., 60 E., to the trouble about the matter.) He told me mouth of the Spruca Pine branch on Flip. | it was the land I sold Joseph I. Doran. ping creek; and Obediah Belcher's 2,500 I told Mr. Belcher he ought to be careful acres lay immediately worth of that line, about trading on that land, and he reand extended across from the Nicholas marked to me that when I sold it that I Jine to Flipping creek. The two birches did not get much for it, and that if I spoken of in George W. Belcher's deed to would not kick in the thing that they Reynolds as being in a line of a survey of would make whole. George W. 2,500 acres conveyed by Hector to Belcher Belcher was present during the taking were not corner trees in that line, but of these depositions, but he was not called were corner trees to the Witten tract of as a witness. 200 acres. As the description in the deed Again, actual and unequivocal possesto Reynolds puts the two birches as a cor. sion is notice, because it is incumbent on ner to the William H. Witten land, it is one who is about to purchase real estate plain that resort must have been actually to ascertain by whom and in what right had to R. D. Belcher's deed to Witten of it is held or occupied; and the neglect of



this cuts is one of the defaults which, un. leged deed of the land in controversy from explained, is equivalent to notice. 2 the commissioner of school lands for White & T. Lead. Cas. 180; Landes v. Mercer county to George W. Belcher, unBrant, 10 How. 318; McLean v. Clapp, 141 der date of December 3, 1881, are attacked U. S. 429, 436, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 29; French by the bill as fraudulent and void, and v. Loyal Co., 5 Leigh, 641; Western M. & part of a scheme to deprive complainant M. Co. v. Peytona Capnel Coal Co., 8 W.Va. of his property. 406, 441; Core v. Faupel, 24 W. Va. 238; These proceedings are attached to the Morrison v. Kelly, 22 II). 610. Possession, bill, and show the filing of a petition by said WALKER, J., in the case last cited, George W Belcher against the school "may be actual or constructire; actual, land commissioner in the circuit court of when there is an occupancy, such as the Mercer county, and its reference to a masproperty is capable of, according to its ter in chancery November 1, 1884; the adaptation to use; constructive, as when report of the master on November 27th, and a person has the paramount title, which, a decree on November 29th. The only party in contemplation of law, draws to and defendant was the commissioner, who apconnects it with the possession. But to peared and waived process. be adverse it must be a pedis possessio, or The decree describes the land in accord. an actual possession. In Ewing v. Bur- anco with the description in the deed from net, 11 Pet. 53, it was held that neither Chrispianos to George W., and directs the actual occupancy nor cultivation nor school commissioner to convey the same residence was necessary to constitute act- to Belcher, which was done accordingly. ual possession; that where the property The petition stated that George W. Belis so situated as not to admit of any per- cher was the owner of a tract of land lying co manent useful improvements, and the con- on Simmons creek in the county of Mertinued claim of the party has been evi. cer, adjoining the lands of Witten, Sadler, denced by public acts of ownership, such and others, and containing about 75 as he would exercise over property which acres, and that said tract was conveyed he claimed in his own right, and would to him by Chrispianos Belcher by deed not exercise over property he did not baring date October 18, 1884; and that "a claim, such possession will create a bar short time prior to the formation of the under the statute of limitations; that state of West Virginia his vendor, Chrispi. what acts may or may not constitute a anos Belcher, removed from the state of possession are necessarily varied, and de- Virginia and county of Mercer to the pend to some extent upon the nature, state of Missouri, and that by mistake locality, and use to which the property and accident the said land was omitted may be applied, the situation of the par- from the land books, and he is advised ties, and a variety of circumstances which that said land is forfeited, and the title have necessarily to be taken into consid- thereto vested in the state of West Vireration in determining the question. And ginia for non-entry thereof on the landso possession of an improved portion of a buoks of Mercer county." The petitioner tract of land, under a conveyance in fee further arerred "that at the time the title of the whole, is construed to be co-ex- vested in the state his said vendor, Chris. tensive with the grant. And where a par- pianos Belcher, had good, valid title therety purchases land adjoining a tract of to, superior to any other claimant there. which he is already in the occupancy, he of, and that your petitioner now has will be considered as at once, in point of good, valid title thereto, superior to any law, in the possession of the newly-ac- other claimant thereof, and he is advised quired tract, when the latter is vacant, or and now arers that he is entitled to reat least not beld under an adverse posses. deem the same by paying all taxes and insion.

terest due on said land by reason of the Now, W. H. Witten resided on 400 acres forfeiture thereof, from the year 1863 to of land wbich adjoined the 1,100-acre the present time, and all costs. tract, while the 200 acres hounded on the The decree recites the conveyance of 1,100 acres, and neither of the latter tracts Chrispianos to George W. Belcher, and was in adverse possession when purchased that at the time of the forfeiture Chrispi. by Witten; and the evidence of W. Scott anos had a good and valid fee-simple title Witten shows that W. H. Witten used the thereto, superior to that of any other 200-acre tract as a range for his cattle, claimant; and that George W. Belcher, and paid the taxes on it, and that, after having appeared in open court and offered W. Scott Witten purchased it at the judi- to pay the sum of $30.71, being the amounta cial saie he also used it in the same way. of all taxes, interest, damages, and costs In other words, such possession as the due*against said tract of land by reason* lund was susceptible of was taken and of the forfeiture, (the taxes in question covmaintained, and, in addition to that, it ering the years from 1863 to 1884, inclusive,) connected with the home tract on which is entitled to be treated in the nature of a W. H. Witten bad lived for 50 years. The purchaser thereof, it appearing to the possession, such as it was, was notori- court that the said George W. Belcher ous, and contributes its weight to the would be entitled to the surplus of purother proofs of notice.

chase money over and above the said sum We repeat that we regard it as satisfac- of $30.71, had paid trart of land been sub. torily established that the defendants had jected to sale as school lands, etc. such notice as put them on inquiry, and We cannot resist the impression that, charged them with knowledge of the facts, taking all the facts and circumstances of and, under the circumstances, their silence the case together, these proceedings in is most significant.

the circuit court of Mercer county were, Certain proceedings resulting in an al. as charged by complainant, a mere device

to bolster up the alleged claim of George would have been charged or chargeable W. Belcher, under the deed from Chris. thereon, since the formation of this state, pianos, to property belonging to the coin- with interest at the rate of 12 per cent. per plainant. So far from strengthening ap- annum and the costs of the proceedings. pellant's position, the inferences to be if his claim be filed in the circuit court drawn from the transactiou are inconsist that decrees the sale within two years ent with good faith in dealing with the thereafter. No such sale had ever taken land. The proofs in this record show the place in this instance. charge of a 200-acre tract of land on By chapter 105 of the Code of West Vir. Siminons Creek fork, or Upper Simmons ginia (Warth's Ed. 1884, p. 639) provision fork, or Simmons fork, on the land books was made for the certifying to the clerk of Mercer county, in the name of William of the circuit court by the auditor of a list H. Witten, for the years 1854, '56. '57, '58, of all waste and unappropriated lands '60, '61, 62, '63, '65, '66, '67, 68, 69, '70, '71, theretofore vested in the state of West '72, 73, 74, 75, '76, '77, 78, 79, '80, and its Virginia by forfeiture or purchase at the transfer for 1882-83 to Joseph I. Doran, and sheriff's or collector's sale for delinquent for 1884-85 to the Southwest Virginia Im- | taxes, and not released, etc., and of lander provement Company. The location is theretofore or thereafter purchased at a stated to be for the last four years on the *sale for taxes and not redeemed, and all* * dividing ridge and Simmons creek. It lands forfeited to the state for failure to also appears that the land-books for the have the same entered upon the landyears 1855 and 1859 were destroyed, and books, etc., in order that they might be for 1864 tbat the land book was “gone, sold for the benefit of the school fund; and that the land does not appear on and it was made the duty of the surveyor the book for 1881. The same books also of each county to report to the circuit show Chrispianus Belcher charged in 1854 court all waste and unappropriated lands and 1856 with 650 acres and 200 acres, lo- in his county subject to sale under the cated on“ Bluestone and Flipping ridge and provisions of the chapter. Further, the Crane creek;” that in 1855 the books were appointment and qualification of a comdestroyed; and that for the year 1857, 10 missioner of school lands by the circuit acres, part of the 650 acres on Bluestone, court of each county was provided for, was charged to Chrispianos, and for whose duty it should be once in each year many years thereafter, exclusive of the to ascertain, from the reports and such two years when the minute is that the other information as he might be able to books were destroyed. As has heretofore obtain, what lands were liable to sale been stated, Chrispianos had a tract of | under the provisions of the chapter, as to 640 acres south of the dividing line be- which no proceedings had been com. tween Obediah's 2,500 and Robert D.'s menced for the sale thereof, and to file bis 1,500 acres, derired from Hector, and part petition praying that the same might be of the 1,500 acres which had been con- sold, and stating the claimant or claimveyed to bim by Robert in*1848, and which ants, and their residence, if known, Chrispianos conveyed to Henry Walker against whom process should be issued in 1856; and both as to that and the 200 that they might show cause why the acres mentioned their location was on lands should not be sold. Publication of Flipping creek and Crane creek, waters of notice to unknown parties was also reBluestone, and they have no connection quired, and it was further provided that whatever with the 200 acres in controver- the former owner of any such land should sy. The latter 200 acres appears in the be entitled to recover the excess of the sum tax-receipts of W. H. Witten for 1851, '55, for which the lands might be sold over '59, '66, '67, '69, '70, '71, 72, 74, 75, 76, '77, what was due to the state if he filed his '78, '79, '8w; and evidence is given explana-claim within two years thereafter; and, tory of the loss of the tax-receipts for the further, that any owner night within the missing years, the payment of the taxes time aforesaid file his petition in the cirfor all the years being otherwise proven. cuit court, stating his title to the land, The land in controrersy here was evident- etc., whereupon said court should order ly not forfeited tu the state in 1863, for the the excess mentioned to be paid to him, reason given in the petition or any other. and at any time during the pendency of

Under the constitution of West Virginia, the proceedings in the sale of such land art. 13, (Code 1884, p. 36,) it is provided such former owner, or any creditor of such that all lands in the state, waste and former owner, might file his petition in unappropriated, or heretufore or hereafter the circuit court and ask to be allowed to for any cause forfeited or treated as for. redeem such part or parts of any tract feited, or excheated to the state of Virginia of land so iorfeited, or the whole thereof, or this state, or purchased by either and as he might desire. The privilege of rebecome irrerieemable, not redeemed, re- demption given by the statute was a priv. leased, transferred, or otherwise disposed ilege personal to the former owner or his of, the title whereto shall remain in tbis creditors having liens on the land, and the sta te until such sale as is hereinafter men. way. time, mode, and manner in which tioned be made, shall, by proceedings in the privilege should be exercised were the circuit court of the county in which prescribed by the statute. the lands or a part thereof are situated, At the time George W. Belclier filed his be sold to the highest bidder; and that petition to redeem the land from the ai. the former owner of any such land shall jeged forfeiture there were no proceedings of be entitled to receive the excess of the sum pending in the Mercer county circuit court for which the land may be sold over the for its sale for the benefit of the school. taxes charged and chargeable thereon, or fund. The petitioner did not pretend that which, if the land had not been forfeited, he was the former owner, or a creditor of

the former owner, but said that the land ficient allegation of possession of the land was forfeited, and the title vested in the has been determined by this court. Gage state of West Virginia for the failure of v. Kaufman, 133 U. S. 471, 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. Chrispianos to have it entered on the 406. land-hooks of Mercer county a short time As heretofore stated, such possession as prior to the admission of the state; and the land was susceptible of had been tak. the report upon the reference is to the ef. en by Witten and maintained by himself fect that the tract was forfeited about and his grantees down to the time, after 1863 by reason of such omission, and that October, 1884, when appellant entered upat the time of the forfeiture the legal title on a part of complainant's laud in the was in Chrispianos. But the legal title commission of a trespass, and commenced to the land in dispute was not in Chris. committing acts of waste upon the proppianus from before 1852, and the land was erty. It cannot be held that this trespass entered on theland-books iu 1863 and prior on appellaut's part constituted a posses-years, and taxes paid thereon. Moreover, sion which in itself would drive complain. the proceeding was an independent pro- ant to an action of cjectment. ceeding, to which the owners were not The jurisdiction of courts of equity to remade parties, and by which they were not move clouds from title is well settled, therebound. As to the suggestion of forfeiture lief being granted on the principle, quia prior to 1848, no question thereon was timet and in the case at bar appellant's own raised on the petition or in this case. contention makes it clear that the remedy

We are of vpinion that tbe circuit court of complainant at law woud bare been in. was right in ignoring the claiin of title un- adequate, since the aid of a court of equity der this deed, and in setting aside the was required to supply what was by mis. other deeds as clouds upon complainant's take omitted from the deed of Robert to title, without regard to these proceed- | Witten, su that the line could be made to run ings in the circuit court of Mercer county. | up the left-hand fork of Simmons creek to

But it is said that complaiuant'e claim the corner of Miller's survey on that is stale, and that he and those under whom creek, and thence to the six chestnuts. he claims have slept upon their rights for We think also that the court had juris. 40 years. There is no doubt that William diction to establish the lost deed, and H. Witten believed himself to be the own- that this is so even though in an action er of all the land up to Simmons creek and at law*proof of the fact might have been al." Miller's line on the east side of that creek, lowed to be made. Hickman v. Painter, 11 from the two birches to the corner of W. Va. 386; 1 Story, Eq. Jur. $ 81. Payne and Graham's tract and to Miller's (pon the whole, we see no reason for & survey, and thence to the six chestnuts. reversal of the decree, and it is therefore It is true, the deed to Robert Belcher had affirmed. not been recorded, and was lost, but, as

(142 U. S. 339) Witten was in possession, mere delay, un. less by reason thereof an equitable estup.

PACIFIC Exp. Co. v. SEIBERT, State Audi.

tor, et al. pel was created in favor of appellant, would not operate to defeat relief; but

(January 4, 1892.) appellant, and none of the parties under TAXATION-INTERSTATE COMMERCE-CONSTRUCTION whom it claims, can assert upon this rec

OF STATUTE. ord that complainant stood by while they 1. The illegality of a tax by reason of the un. were undertaking to possess themselves constitutionality of the statute under which it is of his land, and allowed them to do so to imposed is not suficient ground, of itself alone, their injury, when they would have ab.

for injunctive relief against the tax; the bili stained from it if he had proceeded earlier

must make out a case under some recognized head

of equity jurisdiction, such as a multiplicity of to the restoration of the lost deed and the

suits, ruin of complainant's business, or other rectification of the boundary in the Wit- irreparable injury likely to be caused by the col. ten deed.

lection of the tax. The deed of Chrispianos to George W. 2. Act Mo. May 16, 1889, which imposes on was dated October 18,-1884, and apparent companies carrying goods by express, on con. ly at some tinje between that date and tract with any railroad or steam-boat company, February, 1885, these defendants, or some

a tax on their "receipts for business done within

this state, ” is not an interference with interstate of them, entered upon the tract, prospected for coal, and put on improvements 8. Said act does not deprive the express comamounting to the value of some $200. On panies of the equal protection of the laws, nor February 24th Doran served notice on the constitute inequality of taxation, since the state persons then on the land of his ownership, has a right to tax different kinds of property is etc., and on the 15th of May, 1885, serred

different ways. another notice, and demanded possession.

4. Express companies having no tangible

property of their own constitute a separate class He also, February 14th, put his own ten.

from companies owning their own means of transant in a frame house on the premises, portation, and a discrimination between them which was part of the improvements and such other companies as to the manner in above mentioned, who appears to have which they are taxed does not violate the consti. been subsequently forcibly ejected.

tutional requirements of uniformity and equality Tbe bill was filed August i, 1885. There of taxation. was no delay, therefore, in the assertion Appeal from the circuit court of the of his rights after they were in vaded. United States for the western district of

It is argued at length that a court of Missouri. equity had no jurisdiction in this case. The STATEMENT BY MR. JUSTICE LAMAR. bill alleged that complainant was "seised This was a suit in equity by the Pacific in fee of the said tract of two hundred Express Company, a Nebraska corporaacres, more or less;" and that this is a suf- tion, against John M. Seibert, state audi.



[ocr errors]
« ZurückWeiter »