Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1860-04-11

Opinions OF the supreme Court OF ths
State Of Tennessee al J1chsons April
Term, 1885,

Opinions OF the supreme Court OF the
State of Tennessee az JacAsons April
$500 -''' Upton Is. Saunders.
This was an action of ejectment, brought by
Upton vs.. Saunders.
Judgment was for the defendants.
The question for our determination Is one Of title
The plaintiff claims under a grant to him for 200
acres Of land lying in Obion county, issued on the
st day of January, 1856. This grant is founded on
an entry made by Upton on the 4th day Of August,
1S4s which purpOrts on its face to be considera-
ton of six occupant extension entries (of which he
was assignee,) made on the 18th day of October,
1910.
The defendant sets up claims, to 140 acres of the
land covered by the plaintiffs title, under a grant
to Parham and Woodrmg, issued on the 10th day Of
November lS49, and founded on an entry made on
the 9TH Of july I847. The Circuit Judge instructed
the jury that the PLAINTIFF grant void, far
it interfered with the grant under which the de-
PENDANT claimed the ground, as said in the ar
gument Of the interval between the acts of 1S40-50
and 1882, extending the time for perfecting the
titles TO lands previously entered south and west of
! the congressional reservation line.
By the act of 1880, eh. 1885, the time ex-
tended until the LIST day Of September, 1851" The
act of lS5l-52 passed on the 18th Of November,
1851 1t provides that the enterers of land in any
of the land offices in this State and the assgnees of
such entries shall have time until the first day of
! March, 1854 TO have their entries surveyed and
granted" And by the act of 1854, CHI a sec. l,
passed ON the 10th day Of December 1853, it en-
acted that entries Of land in any of the land Offices
of this State, and the assgnees OF such enterers,
shall have time until the LIST day of April, 1856, to
| have their entries surveyed and granted.
It viii be observed, from the dates Of these acts,
that there was period Of time, from the lst OF
! September, 1851, to the 18th Of November Of the
same year not covered by any act for extending the
time forperfecting titles to lands previously entered
And by reason of this intermisson, it is assumed,
that in relation of the plaintiffs grant to the occu-
/ pant extension entries, on which 1t Is, IN law,
grounded was cut off. and thereby it is supposed
the defendants younger entry became valid, and the
! grant issued thereon, are made feasible title
! This conclusion is entirely erroneous The title
of the plaintiff, under his consolidated entry, and
the grant founded thereon relates to the date OF the
occupant extension entries, made on the 18th OF
October 1915 By force of the act 1916, Oh. So and
other statutorr euactments of similar import, and
notwithstanding the consolidation entry not sur
veyed until the 9th of March, 1855, nor grant OBJ
tanned until the first Of January 1856, the validity
/ Of the titles is nOtimpaired.
| What would have been the result, If the defend
ants entry had been made during the interval which
occurred between the lst of September and the 18th
| of November, 1851? We need not stop to inquire.
Be this as it may it is very clear that the effects of
the acts of 1872 and 1881, above recited, was
to resuscitate the right ami prolOng the time for
perfecting the plaintiff title to period beyond
the date of his grant, and it is no less clear that
| against all persons who acquired no intervening
]
as perfect as if no interval lad occurred.
The idea that the defendants entry and grant,
though inoperae before, took effect instantly the
happening Of the accidental intermisson in the ex-
tension law is altogether fallacOus This could not
be So for the simple that both the entry and
grant in their inception, were utilities. The
entry was made on the 9TH day of July, 1857, long
prior to the expiration Of the title limited by the
act OF 1880 for making q survey and obtaining
a grant by the plaintiff and directly in the face of
the statute, forbidding entry to be made Of any
lands which another, at the time, had existing
occupant or presumption right. and declaring such
an entry and the grant obtained thereon to be void
and being thus void ab jatiO, nothing short Of the
sovereign power Of the Legislature could impart to
! such entry and grant any legal effect.
| Upon this point, The case Of Sampson VS.. Taylor,
Sneed, GOO is not at variance with our present de-
/ termination.
The objection that the plaintiffs grant is unavail-
ing for want of proof Of the transfer to him Of the
occupant entries upon which the consolidated entry
! and grant are based IS not tenable.
The statute prescribed the mode by which the
| transfer and ownership of the occupant claims or
! entries, might be re-establshed before the entry
! taker And at the issuance of grant it will be
presumed, when the title coaterally in ques-
tion in court of law, that all the preliminary steps
necessary TO the making of the entry and obtaining
| the grant were regularly pursued.
Judgment reversed. MCKINNEY.
Teste: NJ. D. WEIGH, Clerk.