Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1879-10-14

There was filed in the supreme court yester-
day tho following important opinion in tax
title suit:
Tristan w. Tidd. Ezra B. Fales, and Clara G..
West. VS.. Charles 81. Rines and l.. Pratt.
OPlnlon-This action is brought under the
provision Pre- of chapter 6S, laws 1874, for
the purpose of determining on
adverse claim by defendants to certain va.
can't lands OF which the plaintiffs claim to be
the lawful owners in fee simple. II appears
from the pleading that the adverse claim is
founded upon sale of the lands in question
to the State in pursuance of certain Judgments
rendered against them as thereon stated. One
OF the issues presented and tried below was
upon the alleged ownership in fee by plaintiffs
of the lands in controversy, portion of which
lay in section and portion in section q.
township 80, range 26. In proving this issue
on these parts the plaintiffs first introduced in
evidence of certificate of the register of the
United States land Office at Taylors Falls pur-
porting to contain q true and correct abstract
from the records and books of said office in re-
spect to such lands (which shows that all the said
lands in section were entered and paid for
by one William L.. Larned on the LIST day of
August 1855, that the 8. E. a of the N. 4. II
OF said section was also entered and paid for
on the 10Th of August, 1856 by one Francis ].
Remmington and that the patents for all these
were issued in February, 1857. 1t also appears
from such abstract that one Cobb Woodbury.
located military lands warrants upon the re-
naming tracts described in section on the
18th of August, 1855. In addition to the GER
titled abstract the register in his certificate
states substantially that all the said lands were
in fact entered and located as indicated by the
abstract and further that no patents upon the
Woodbury. locations have been received at the
Office, although as he says they have been duly
issued, else the locations would have been can
celled long since. As to all the facts stated
and contained in this certified abstract taken
from the land Office records or books, the Ger
tifcate was competent evidence under section
sc, chapter IS. General Statutes. Washburn
vs., Mendenhall ct al. Vi. Minnesota 1926.
The statement Of the register that patents
had been duly issued upon the Woodbury. To-
cations, was clearly but the expression of be-
lief of that Office founded upon the fact
that the location had never been ordered can
celled at his Office, though long time had es-
capped since they were made. 1t was wholly
unauthorized ty the statue and unadvisable
as evidence for any purpose. Its reception,
however, furnishes no ground for a new trial,
for it worked no harm to the defendants. The
facts properly covered by the certificate and
no where sought to be controverted by the de-
PENDANTS, prima facie, and sufficiently showed
transfer of title from the government with
out any proof as to the issuance of the patents.
Under our laws the fact of an entry or loca-
ton of government land by military land
warrant, is alone entitled to pass prima
facie title thereto, to the party making such
entry or location: Capter 73, section Sd. And
the existence of these facts was shown pre-
sumptively as to the lands in question by the
certificate of the register in this case. In re-
spect to the Larned deed-"exhibit B'-no Ger
tifcate of acknowledgment was essential to its
validity, as an operative conveyance to pass
the legal title to the lands therein described.
Plaintiffs in this case were not
required 4s to show good
acknowledgement complained of was therefore,
not good ground for excluding the deed as evi-
dence. That the deed was executed on the
part of the grantors by an attorney in fact, was
sufficiently indicated from their signatures and
that of their attorney, and the manner of
any recital of the fact in the deed ITSELF
The omission of the notarial zeal to the GER
tifcate of acknowledgement to deed-'exhibit
D, 2'-is covered and cured by chapter IS, laws
The use of seal by q pr ,bate court in enter
ing OF record its orders and DEGREES is not es-
sentlal to their validity. Neither the iurisdic-
ton of that court nor its exercise is dependant
upon any such condition. The point made by
| appellants upon this subject is without merit.
The decree of distribution in it was ''assigns
for the respondent, Clara G.. West, the real
property in question to have and to hold same
according to the provisions of said last will
and testament unto her, her heirs and assigns
| forever" The estate thus assigned was one in
fee and not life estate or simple mortgage
interest. The objection which we have thus
| briefly considered being disposed of, it is clear
upon the evidence that the plaintiff estab-
lished good prima facie title fee to all the
| tracts of land described in their complaint az
situated in said section 8, and also to the Sc u
of the ne d of section 4, aforesaid, and as t.
these lands the right to contest the adverse
claim of the defendants thereto in this action
IS undoubted, whatever may be the fact
In reference to the rest of the
lands in said section 4, q question which will
be fully considered and determined hereafter.
The tax judgments upon which the claim OF
the defendants rest. though rendered under
different statutes, are substantially alike in
form and present upon their face the same
radical defects. IF one is INVALID and void be-
cause of any indefniteness or uncertainty, the
other is equally so and for like reasons,
That entered under chapter l, laws 1874,
bears date Aug. IL, 1874, and purports to have
been rendered lin proceedings to enforce pay
1nent of the taxes on real estate remaining de-
linquent on the first day of June,'' without
specifying any year. It is in items a. follows:
1t is adjudged and decreed that each piece O,
parcel of land hereinafter described is liable
for taxes, interest, penalties and costs, to the
amount set opposite the same, as follows:
e sz|SI|:g s.