Opinion ID: 87517
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The tax deeds.

Text: It is not denied that at the time Lee conveyed to Noonan, his chain of title was perfect, unless it was broken by one or more of the facts claimed by Noonan to have produced that effect. In this connection the tax deeds found in the record are relied upon. They consist of Exhibits C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, and the deed to Orton of the 25th of April, 1852. (1). The deed last named does not appear to have been recorded. Possession under it can therefore have no effect upon the rights of Lee. The description in the deed does not cover the premises in controversy. That part of the description relied upon is in these words: Part of the S.E. quarter section fourth, T. 7, R. 22, bounded north by Demster, east by Jones and Bare, west by river, and south by Allerding, (nineten acres). The land in controversy is not in the southeast quarter of the section, and there is nothing in the case which shows what river is referred to, or where the lands of Demster and the other parties named are situated. (2). Exhibit F, I, and J, are duplicates respectively of Exhibits H, C, and E, and may be laid out of view. (3). Exhibits C, D, and G, embrace none of the land in controversy. This leaves only Exhibits E and H to be examined. (4). Exhibit E. This is a deed to James H. Rogers. It bears date on the 17th of February, 1846. It recites a sale to Rogers on the 14th day of December, 1840, for the taxes of that year. The description embraces lots one and six in block five of the plat. This block is within the limits of the mortgaged premises. At the time of the sale, and for several years previous, Rogers had been in possession of the mortgaged premises under the deed of the 27th of July, 1837, from Prentiss, to whom he had given back a mortgage of the same date to secure the purchase-money. Prentiss had proceeded to foreclose the mortgage, and the premises were sold under a decree rendered on the 26th of June, 1840. Prentiss became the purchaser, and on the 5th of October, 1840, received the master's deed for the premises. Rogers being in possession, the Statutes of Wisconsin required him to pay the taxes, and gave him an action to recover the money back, if he were entitled to it, from the party to whose benefit the payment enured. (Revised Statutes of 1839, sec. 14, p. 47.) His relation to the property, and to his vendor and mortgagee also, rendered it his duty to make such payment. Neither he nor any one claiming under him can avail himself of a title thus acquired, as against Prentiss and those claiming under him. Douglass vs. Dangerfield, (10 O. Rep., 152); Creps vs. Baird, (3 O.S.R., 377). (5). Exhibit H. This deed was also to James H. Rogers, and bears date on the 23d of December, 1845. It recites that the sale was made to Rogers on the 9th of December, 1839, for the taxes of that year. It embraces lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, in block 5, as delineated on the plat. During all of the year 1839, Rogers was in possession as the vendee of Prentiss, and the same remarks apply as to Exhibit E. Underlying these deeds is another objection. We have already referred to the non-conformity of the town plat to the requirements of the statute, and the fact that it was penal to sell or lease any lot, as such, which it represented All the witnesses, including Orton, who claimed to be in possession of the whole of fractional lot 2, speak of it as a pretended plat. Orton says: I do not know of such a village as Mechanicsville in fact, though I have heard of it. I do not know where the plat of Mechanicsville is located, though I know where they claim it is located. I know the land described in the mortgage in the bill of complaint from its boundaries. It does not appear in the case that any street was ever improved, that any lot was ever enclosed, or that any house was ever built with reference to the boundaries of any street or lot. It comes out incidentally in the evidence touching possession, that there is but one house on the plat, and that it is in a ruinous condition and unoccupied. Nothing is proved in pais, recognizing the existence of the plat. Under these circumstances it may well be doubted whether the sales of lots for taxes were not illegal and void. Wheeler vs. Russell, (17 Mass., 258); Strong vs. Darling et al., (9 O. Rep. 201). We have not found it necessary to decide that question, and we express no opinion upon the subject. As the facts are disclosed in the record, we find no defect in the title of Lee. We find that Noonan's title has not failed, and no encumbrance upon the property is shown. There has been, therefore, no breach of the agreement endorsed upon the bond; nor has there been any breach of the covenant of general warranty in Lee's deed to Noonan. The deed contains no other covenant. The Statute of Wisconsin of 1849 permits a grantor out of possession to make a valid conveyance of lands adversely held by another. In all cases where there is adverse possession, by virtue of a paramount title, of lands thus conveyed, such possession is regarded as eviction, and involves a breach of the covenant of warranty. Where, as in this case, the paramount title is in the warrantor and the adverse possession tortious, it is no eviction either actual or constructive, and no action will lie upon the covenant. Randolph vs. Meek, (1 Martin & Yerger, 58); Moore vs. Vail, (17 Ill., 185); Rawle on Covenants of Title, 224) There is another view of this case which must not be passed over in silence. It is not claimed by Noonan in his answer that there was any fraud or misrepresentation on the part of Lee, or that any fact exists in regard to the title which was unknown to him when he bought the property. It appears by the testimony of Orton, that there was a controversy between him and Noonan about water power, and that it has been adjusted. Orton says: He (Noonan) has no interest with me in this land of record. I don't know that he has any. I don't know that I have any interest in the result of this suit. I dont know that I will be benefitted in any way by Noonan's success in this suit. This is guarded and peculiar language. It is impossible to read the testimony of Orton and resist the conclusion that Noonan bought the property for a purpose, and that having held the title for several years without paying anything, and accomplished that purpose, he is now seeking, upon the pretence of defects of title, finally to avoid the payment of the purchase money, and throw back the property upon the hands of his vendor. This ungracious work a Court of Equity will not permit him to do. If Noonan had gone into possession, and continued in possession under his deed from Lee, this elaborate examination of the state of the title would not have been necessary. With reference to that class of cases, this Court, in Patton vs. Taylor, (7 How., 159), after referring to numerous authorities, thus laid down the law: These cases will show that a purchaser in the undisturbed possession of the land will not be relieved against the payment of the purchase money, on the mere ground of defect of title there being no fraud or misrepresentation, and that in such a case he must seek his remedy at law on the covenants in his deed. That if there is no fraud and no covenants to secure the title, he is without remedy, as the vendor selling in good faith is not responsible for the goodness of his title beyond the extent of his covenants in the deed. And that further relief will not be afforded upon the ground of fraud, unless it be made a distinct allegation in the bill, so that it may be put in issue by the pleadings. This doctrine is fully sustained by the best considered authorities. Corning vs. Smith, (2 Seld., 84); Plat vs. Gilchrist, (3 Sandf. S.C. Rep., 118); Butler vs. Hill, (6 Ohio S.R., 217); Beebe vs Swartout, (3 Gilman, 162). The proofs in this case show, that before filing his bill, Lee notified Noonan, that he elected to consider the entire amount of the mortgage debt as due. This entitled him to a decree for the full amount, although according to the terms of the bond, one of the instalments was not due when the bill was filed. Noyes vs. Clark, (7 Paige, 180). It remains to consider that part of the decree which directs Noonan to pay the balance which may remain unsatisfied after exhausting the proceeds of the mortgaged premises. The equity jurisdiction of the Courts of the United States is derived from the Constitution and Laws of the United States. Their powers and rules of decision are the same in all the States. Their practice is regulated by themselves, and by rules established by the Supreme Court. This Court is invested by law with authority to make such rules. In all these respects they are unaffected by State legislation. Neves vs. Scott, (13 How., 270); Boyle vs. Zachary Turner, (6 Pet., 658); Robinson vs. Campbell, (3 Wheat., 323). A majority of my brethren are of the opinion, and I am directed by them so to announce, that in the absence of a rule of this Court authorizing it to be done, it was not competent for the Court below to make such an order. That part of the decree is reversed. The residue is affirmed. The cause will be remanded to the Court below with instructions to proceed accordingly.