The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1889-09-01
AN OLD SUIT REVIVED.
Process of Law Applying to Land Once Bought
by the State for One OF Its Institutions.

The property known as the McCaslin
come into litigation for the third time, and
it is not unlikely thatthe same issues which
the courts have twice passed upon will be
involved. The case presents some of those
curious features which are by no means
common, and demonstrate how property
may be held indefinitely when the States
interest is involved, and the officers whose
duty it is to look after it are constantly
being changed by elections. In 1867 q tract
of one hundred acres of Ian was purchased
near the city by the State as the site for a
house of refuge. 1t was afterwards deter
mined to locate the institution at Plain
field, and Governor Baker and its trustees
were appointed q committee to dispose Of
the land purchased in this county. In
October following the committee sold the
property to William McCaslin for $500.
and took his note and a mortgage upon
some other lands for the purchase money.
No payment was made on the farm, but up
to 1875 McCaslin was engaged in cutting off
the timber and hauling it to this city. thus
constantly reducing the value of the land
while the State saw no prospect of getting
the purchase money. The m~Ortgaged lands
were sold, but they brought but $500 or
$500, and in 1875 suit was filed On the part
of the State for the recovery, of the land;
The case went through all the courts, and
was finally decided against McCaslin, and
the land ordered sold. This time Mrs. Nc
Caslin became the purchaser, and a small
amount of money was paid on the farm.
The contract of sale was never carried out,
and again in 1884 the case got into the
courts. Another decree of sale followed.
and McCaslin was dispossessed, but went
back upon the land.
BY this time it had suffered from the gen.
eral depreciation of and in this county,
and, the appraisement being. very
high, no bidders appeared. McCaslln was
on the farm and promised to pay rent, and
the Auditor, not being able to n q pur-
chaser, consented to let him lave the farm
in consideration of a fair rental. A part of
the rent money agreed upon was paid, and
then McCaslin refused or neglected to pay
any more. and for the past five years has
lived upon the land without paying any
thing to the State. Possession was de-
manded of him some time ago. but he re-
fnsed to surrender the tract, and 1T will be
again brought into court before the State
can get possession of the property. Nc
Caslin says that there are some entirely
not brought out in the former trials, and
he believes that he can hold the lane
against the State. 1t is claimed by the
State officers that he has no title whatever,
DuC IneTe lS DuU one way I'D get pOSSeSSiOu
of it. and that is by carrying it again into
the courts for a judicial decision. In 1857
the land was worth $500, but it is not now
worth more thar $1,000.
The trouble with the last proceeding was
that the Auditor did not refuse to let Nc
Caslin live upon the land, but he thought
it better that the State should receive some
rent from 1t than to let it lie idle. He had
no idea that the tenant would ever set mp a
claim to the land after two suits in court
had effectually settled the right of the
State to the property. Having gotten it
legally in his possession as a renter, he pro-
ceeds to lay claim to it in fee, notwith-
standing the time-honored maxim that the
tenant canno call in question the title of
the landlord to the property he rents. When
the courts again pass upon the questions
involved, and possession is given the State,
there will probably be an order restraining
McCaslin from entering upon the land for
any purpose whatever. This, in the judg-
ment of the State officers, is the only thing
that will keep McCaslin off the land, and
prevent other suits to establish the States
title to the property.