Case Name: Adams County v. The B. & M. R. Co.
Court: Iowa Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Iowa
Decision Date: 1874-10-07
Citations: 39 Iowa 507
Docket Number: 
Parties: Adams County v. The B. & M. R. Co.
Judges: 
Reporter: Iowa Reports
Volume: 39
Pages: 507–512

Head Matter:
Adams County v. The B. & M. R. Co.
1. Action: to quiet title: party. A county which, by its Board of Supervisors, agreed to convey all the swamp lands it was then or might afterwards become entitled to, and actually conveyed the same, cannot afterwards maintain an action to quiet the title in itself.
2. Estoppel: taxation. Where the Secretary of the Interior had certified the swamp lands of a certain county to a railroad company, and thereafter the county had for seven years taxed the lands to the company, and for one or more years had advertised and sold them for taxes, and the company had sold some of them to person» who had been in actual possession for periods of from two to six years: Semble, that the county would be estopped from asserting title to the lands.
3. Action: right of: deed. A deed by a county, conveying certain swamp lands, contained a covenant to convey to tbe same grantee at any time by similar deed, at the request of the grantee, all the other lands in the county that might be duly selected as swamp lands: Held, that-with reference to grantors’ right of action to quiet title, there was no distinction between the lands described in the deed and others afters .ward duly selected as swamp lands.
4. Estoppel: taxation: compromise. In an action by a county to quiet title to lands over which defendant exercised acts of ownership, it appeared that the lands were taxed to defendant among other lands, and that a large sum was due for taxes, of which sum the county accepted a certain amount as a compromise and in settlement: Held, that the defendant was thereby recognized as owner, and the county estopped from denying the fact of his ownership.
Appeal from Adams District Court.
Wednesday, October 7.
. ■ This is a suit in equity to establish and quiet plaintiff’s title ,to certain lands, as being swamp lands situated in said county, • and to which the defendant claims title and over which it exercises acts of ownership. The defendant denies the plaintiff’s .title; denies that the lands are swamp lands; avers that by fraud of plaintiff’s agents they were selected as such;' avers that said lands were certified to defendant in 1861, and that plaintiff had taxed said lands to defendant ever since, and recognized its ownership; and also averred the sale by plaintiff of all its interest-in said lands to the American Emigrant Company. Judgment for plaintiff. The defendant appeals.
Stuart Bros, and Gregory do Howell, for appellant.
Franje M. Davis, for appellee. '

Opinion:
Cole; J.
The defendant averred specifically in its answer that the plaintiff had sold and conveyed all its interest in and title to the lands in controversy to the American , ' Emigrant Company; and on the trial it was .proved by the contract of sale and deed of conveyance by the .county to .said company that, on the 3d day of September, .1862, the, plaintiff, by its Board of Supervisors, contracted to sell to said company and agreed to convey, all the swamp lands in said county to which it was then or might thereafter become entitled; and on the 7th day of September, 1863, the county actually conveyed the said lands accordingly. There is no conflict of evidence or dispute in relation to these facts. It is very certain, therefore, that the plaintiff is not the owner of the lands, and cannot be entitled to a decree establishing and quieting a title in the county.
The defendant also averred and proved that after the con-, troversy about these lands, and between the same parties herein> before the Secretary of the Interior, who certified the lands to the defendant immediately thereafter, and- in October 1861, the plaintiff- had recognized the defendant as owner thereof, and had assessed and collected taxes thereon from defendant, for every year since 1861 and in one or more years had advertised and sold them for such-taxes; and, also, that the defendant had sold some of the lands, to various persons, not parties to this action, who had been in jiossession by actual residence thereon for periods of from two to six years each.
Under these circumstances, and the rule as established in the case of The Iowa Railroad Land Co. v. Story County, 36 Iowa, 48, it may not admit of much doubt that the county is now estopped from asserting any title. But this point we need not definitely decide, because it clearly appears from the first point above stated that the county is not the owner, regardless of the estoppel.
Reversed.