Western Kansas world. [volume] (WaKeeney, Kan.) 1885-current, 1906-11-03
SCHOOL LAND MATTER.

For 0r[tWeuty-hve years holders OF
school land contracts, in arrears OF
payment of principal or interest with
a forfeiture noted on the records of
the county clerks Office could not re-
instate the old contract, except by
mandamus proceedings against the
county treasurer, and the same law is
in full force and effect today. The
act of the legislature of 1908, did not
strengthen the claim of a holder of an
old certificate.
All decisions of the Supreme Court
upon the Reinstatement of an old
school land contract or certificates,
are based upon the laws of 1879, and
most of them were passed upon long
before the.laws of 1908 existed
The following Supreme Court de-
cisions are upon the cancellation of
school land certificates Read them,
viz:
Hanson VS.. Wilson, 40 Kansas reports
page 2I1.
This decision was rendered by
Chief Justice Horton and decided at
the July term of the Supreme Court,
1888.
1t reads:
ssThe statue prescribes that the
notice must be served By the sheriff
of the county by delivering copy to
the purchaser if found in the county;
and if the purchaser cannot be found
and no person is in possession of the
land. then by posting notice up in
no ,f 1,
county clerk. The sheriff must serve
the notice and make due return of
the service within fifteen days from
the receipt of the same. In this case
the notice was received by the sheriff
on the 23rd day of April, 1887, but he
made no return of the same until
May 13, 1887; therefore he did not re-
turn the notice with his manner of
service within the time required by
the statute. But more than this, the
sheriff never made any return, of the
time and manner of the service, of
the notice. He did not return that
he served the same by going to the
land and finding it wholly abandoned.
There was nothing in rhis return
purchaser could not be found in the
county; and there was nothing in the
service showing or tending to show
that the sheriff ever posted the
notice UP iu the office of the county
clerk. Before any notice could be
posted in the Office of the county
clerk, the return of the sheriff should
have shown that the purchaser could
not be personally served. There was
nothing in the notice, or in the re-
turn of the notice, or in any of the
proceeding, showing or tending to
show that the provisions of the
statute were complied with"
'Under the latter statute, there can
be no forfeiture until the expiration
of sixty days after the service of the
notice required to be issued. For
and therefore before a purchaser of
school lands shall forfeit all his
rights and interest in such lands,
under his purchase, the notice to him
of his default, if any. must be made
and served In accordance with the
provisions of the statute.
The peremptory Writ will be grant,
ed as prayed for"
Oberlin Loan Company VS.. Finn,
50 Kansas SO.
Decided by the Supreme Court on
April 10, 1897, the opinion written by
Chief Justice johnson contains the
following language:
s'As forfeitures are not favored, the
statutory requirements must be
strictly pursued; and before it can be
held that a purchaser of school lands
has forfeited all his right and inter
est in the land purchased, it must ap-
pear that notice, of his default has
been given him in accordance with
the statutory provisions. Such notice
was not given the plaintiff in this
case, and, therefore, the forfeiture
proceeding is nullity.
1.-THE plaintiff is entitled to be re-
stored to the right of purchaser and
therefore, the writ of mandanus will
be awarded in accordance with the
prayer of the petition"
The opinion of the Supreme Court
written by Chief Justice Doster in
the case of Knott VS.. Tade and filed
on April 10, 1897, awarded a peremp-
tory writ of mandamus and restored
the holder of the contract to his
rights for the reason that the sheriff's