The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1889-06-09

lully the claims OF respondents coming
through said cause and the State and the
Levee Board, and respondent insist that
they cannot be required to furnish all this
information which is readily accessible TO
the complainants.
s. Fhat there is q misjoinder OF parties,
defendant, as the bill fails to show u COM
mon title and common interests in defend
ants.
o. That the bill fails to tender the taxes
paid by the defendants, The questions
raised by these different grounds OF de-
murrer will be considered in the order
stated.
|. That there is no equity on the face
OF the bill. This ground of demurrer
would have been we'll taken, but in Sec
ton /, 1888, OF the Code of 1850, which is rs
follows: "When any person, not the right
full owner OF lands in this State, shall have
any conveyance, or other evidence Of title
thereto, or shall assert any claim, or pre-
| tend TO have any right or title thereto,
which may cast doubt or suspicion on tho
| title OF the true owner, such real owner
may file bill in the Chanccry Court IN
the county where such real estate may bo
situated to have such conveyance or other
evidence OF title cancelled, and such
doubt, clause or suspicion removed from
| said title, whether such real owner be III
possession or be threatened to be disturbed
in his possession or not, and whether the
defendant bo resident of this State or
not. And any person having the cluita-
bic title To land in this State, may IN like
cases, file a bill TO divert the legal title out
of the person in whom the same may bo
vested and TO vest the same in tho equita-
BILE owner"
The facts as alleged in this bill fall with
in the provisions OF this section Of the code
OF 1880, and under which the bill is passed.
The Supreme Court OF the United States,
rs early Us the case of Black w. Smith, l3
Peters, held that a State has an undoubtcd
right TO regulate aud protect individual
rights to her soil, and 10 declare what shall
form cloud in titles, and having 50 de-
clarcd, the courts Of tho United States, 10y
removing such clouds are only applying an
old practice to new equity created 10y the
Legislature. This ruling has been followed
ever since by that court, and especially so
in the eases of Holland vs.. Chalen, no
L. s., page II, aud Reynolds vs.. Craw.
louisville Bank, ll2 U. :, page 100
These decisions were both based on
statutes similar TO section 1888 Of our
code OF 1850, the iirst named being on n
| tltilu3 Ol lilt Nillt Oh NtbIi1kNt uiu lllf
last on u statute OF the State Of Indiana.
Under the rulings made by the Supreme
Court OF the United States in these cases.
this iirst ground of demurrer IL not main
iainabc. The second ground Of demurrer
i very much the same with the first, that
Is that the bill fails 10 state case which
entities the compliments to n discovery.
II Is conceded that under the rule laid
down by the Supreme Court OF this state,
IN the case OF Cook W. Friley, Gl Miss
PAGE l. that the aycrmcnts in the bill are
sufficient Tho supreme Court in con
STRUNG Section .S,i3 Of the Code OF 1850,
in that ease, say that the complainant Is
not required To set forth in his bill the
claim OF evidence By which he became the
owner of the land. IL i suilicient TO ever
that lac ID such owner and, II II l. denied.
prove IT, II IL Is tho object OF the bill a.
cancel q particular evidence OF title. pos
scssed by the defendant, II should bc SC
forth in the bill as fully and parlicnlarl
rs EaOwn 10 the plcadcr, but rs bill mnl
be brought TO dispose OF any claim or pre-
tense Of right on title asserted, or male by
} the defendant. IL follows that II cllnot b.
ground Tor demurrer 30 the biz; that II
does not set forth the title sought TO be
cancelled. The complaint may be an as
scriiOn Of claim, aud the defendant mus
set forth his claim and make Il good"
The samo rule IL held 10y the Supreme
Court Of the United States la the ease
from Nebraska aud Indiana referred Co.
The bill In this case alleges that the de
Pendants, as compliments are informed and
believe, set up other claims 10 the land'
described than those referred 10, aud pray
for their removal. The claims referred &
1 ~. 4 Il
10 not fall within the rule laid down M
Cook Vs. Frlcy. requiring them 10 be- spc-
officially set iorth hut II this were not so,
the statement Of the claim Is all that is re-.
quircd under that decision. Under the
rules above stated am satisfied that thc
second ground Of demurrer cannot pre-.
yaiL
The third ground Of demurrer isthat IN,
bill In lis statements IL vague, uncertain
and contradictory. Under the liberal
rules stated above this gound Of demurrer
cannot prevail.
The fourth ground Of demurrer IL that
the bill AYERS that the defendants claim
title TO the lands described under sale
made In May, 1869. known ~ liquidnting
lcyce tax sales. That under this sale com
plainnnts are barred from setting up ans
defense to tho titles acquired hereunder
under the provisions OF tho act NJ 1860
prescribing Limitation Of five ycars, and
! also under the provisions OF the code ol
1871 aud the net oi 1873, prescribing d
limit Of three years In which suits may be
! brought 10 set aside tax titles OF titles e.
land sold for non-paymcnt Ol taxes
The recent decisions made by tho Su,
prone Court Of this State In the case oI
sigman VI. Lunday ct al. aud Cochran VI.
Berry, both decided at the present term d
that court, aud which are binding Ia this
court lin this case, settle aud define
the scope and effect Of these stat
utcs 70 bo something more than mcr,
statutes oi Limitation, but 10 cons,i
tutc part Of the contract Of tho sale and
, purchase In favor Of the purchaser at such
tax sales, and these holding under him.
and, therefore, irrcyocablo and irropcala.
bic. aud that Il that after the lapse Of tli,
time prescribed, no irfcgularity In the as
scssmcnt for taxes or Ia the sale or convey
ancc shall bo held to inyalidalo tho It'll,
thereto derived under such sale.
Under this construction OF these stat
! uicB any irrrgulari,y - 10 the assessment
F. for taxes, the place, time or manner o
sale, as 10 whether the officer making Tia
! sale and conveyance had given bond an,
! | qualified by law, and which iucgulafitie
(. might have been dispensed with by th'
Legislature, " 10y the lapse Of time men
toned ceased, and cannot thereafter b
r set up 10 defeat title thus obtained, pro
5 vidcd II does not interfere with the right
OF bona iido purchasers for value withou
! notice.
s But these decisions hold that these pro