Arkansas true Democrat., 1860-03-14

IFeP0fe0 0eTpTeSHyJOfMe True DemOcrdt, 6y F. W. HoADLEY, ATTORNEY AT LAW. Strawn' AppeM from .uortqomery Norris. ct al. c. G. 'n C1a"cery.
 Strawn, the appellant entered at the United States States land office, for Thos Norris, a forty acre tract of land The land being purchased with land warrant, the entry was necessarily made in Strawns name, who thus became vested with the paked legal title Norris directed Strawn to convey to his brother, Andrew T. and Sam'l Norris, which Strawn accordingly did, on the 7th July, 1852, by deed of that date with covenants of warranty The deed was filed for registration on 1th Aug, 1852, and was registered without acknowl- edgment or proof of its execution. After wards Andrew T. and Sam'l Norris applied to Strawn and requested him to convey the land to Sam'l Norris in sevcraltv, stating that the deed previously executed by him had not been registered, and should be de- | Iivercd up and cancelled, on the execution of another deed to the same land. The reason for this request given by them was that Samuel had bought out the interest of Andrew T. and that by the cancellation of the first deed and the execution of another deed directly to Samuel, the expense of re- gisterng two deeds instead of one would be saved. Strawn relying upon their state mcnts, executed second decd 3lst Aug, 1852, with like covenants of warranty.- | The first deed was delivered up to Strawls | ,ftn ,1, Il, t. I,l registered in the manner above stated Be tween the first and second conveyance by Strawn, Andrew T. anl Sam'l Norris caus- ed part of said forty acre tract of land to be laid off in town lots, and conveyed two of them to William G. Saunders. To have tie second dcGd cancelled and the first declared valid was the prayer of the bill. The court dismissed the bill and the cause. was brought up on appeal. The Court held:
 lst. The surrender or destruction of deed, though not registered. will operate to revcSt the grantor with the tite
 2d. The subsequent cancellation does not affect the rights of purchaser who pur chases from the grantees prior to the can ccllation, and the grantor is liable because the covenant of warranty passes with tho lands.
 Decree of the court below reversed and the cause remanded.
 Chas. McDermott, Appeal from
 vs. CAicot c. c. 70 Martin R. F. Mathis, Cbancery.
 The only question in this case is whether the lands of the appellants are such as to be benefited by the construction of levees, within the meaning of the act of 7th Jan uary, 1857.
 1Hc court held:
 1st. The listing of lands for taxation by the evee inspectors, raises the presumption that they are such as would be benefited by evee work.
 2d. The legislature did not intend to re- ! strict the term benefited" to protection from actual overflow in its application to each particular tract of land lying within the overhowed district.
 | Decree below affirmed.
 | NoTE-The decree of the court below in the cases of Montgomery vs. Mathis, Bow ling vs. same, Wilson vs. same, John J. Jackson & Co. vs. same, and Chas. McDer mott vs same, is affirmed on the decision in this case and that of McGehee vs. Mathis, decided at the present term.