The clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1883-1888, 1886-11-17
HOLMES
V.
MCGEE.

MCGEE.
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Wins
ton County. Hon. w. NJ. Rodgers,
Judge.
In 1868, Francis MCGEE died, leaving
a widow and three children, two OF
whom have since died, unmarried. In
1879, Mrs. McGee, the widow, died
Before her death, Mrs. McGee, claiming
the land in controversy only as widow
of her deceased husband, sold the same
to one Lloyd, who went into possession,
and in 1875 LLOYD executed a deed of
trust on this land to the firm of Con-
stantine 81 Co. This firm was afterwards
dissolved. and one Tyson, as the agent
of his wife, who was a member of the
firm of Constantine q Co., entered into
possession of the land, claiming under
the deed of trust executed by Lloyd.
After Tyson had gone into possession,
the land was sold for the taxes of 1874,
and purchased bv the State, and in 1880,
Tyson purchased the same from the
Auditor of Public Accounts, and in 1882,
sold it to the defendant, Holmes. On
| December 13, 1884, Martha Eliza MCGEE,
| Francis McGee, deceased, brought an
action of ejectment against Holmes to
| recover possession of this land. On the
| trial the issue was found for the defend
ant, and the plaintiff appealed TO this
court. On the hearing here the cause
was reversed and remanded for the
reasons set out in MCGEE V. Holmes, GO
! Miss, 90. On the second trial, from
which this appeal is taken, substantially
| the same facts were shown as in the
| first instance, bat the defendant claimed
| that he was entitled to judgment for
| the amount expended by him in i'm.
| provements and taxes. The plaintiff
| waived all claims for rents. The court
instructed the jury TO find for the
plaintiff, which was done, and the de-
PENDANT appealed.
On the trial the defendant, Holmes
testified that he had lived for 40 years
within two miles of the land in contro
versy; that he had been we'll acquainted
with MCGEE and knew that he had lived
on the land several years; that he knew
the Youngest child was two or three
years of age before the war; that ht
supposed that it was F. NJ. McGee's land
and not Mrs McGee's land; that he
knew that Mrs. MCGEE died at the siege
of Vicksburg, and that a few years after
the war the widow sold the land te
LLOYD; that he did not know when Tysor
got possession of the land; that know
ing the ages of the children, he supposed
the tax title was good; that before he
purchased from Tyson, he received {
letter from w. d. MCGEE, offering t.
sell him the land for S100, and make
him good title thereto; that he natu
rally supposed that w. ID. MCGEE wa,
acting for the McGee heirs; and tina
none Of the Improvements were mad,
before receiving this letter.
The court below excluded all evidence
in relation to the value of the improve
ments.
CAMPBELL, J., delivered the opinion Of
the Court.
That the appellee is entitled to re
cover the land sued for was settled by
the decision of this court on the formel
appeal in this case. 1t was then hello
that the purchase of the land from tn,
State was not available TO defeat tn,
title of the appellee, and operated merely
as a redemption of the land. There i
nothing in the record to change thi
view.
On his own testimony the appellan
was not bona tide holder of the land 81
as to entitle him to compensation fo
improvements, under section 2512 of th,
code of 1880. When he purchased anC
made the Improvements, he knew al
the facts about the title. True, ht
thought the tax title was good, and SUI
ficient to defeat the claim of the McGet
heirs. N this he was mistaken, and al
he knew the facts and mistook the law
the sincerity of his erroneous belief is
not sufficient to bring him within Cole
v johnson, SO Miss, "a. The court
rightly instructed the jury to fine
against the appellant. Affirmed.
| Charles Richardson, for The appellant
Rives & Rives, for the appellee.