Court Opinion

ID: 7988979
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-09-09 01:28:48.304007+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:35:17.646916
License: Public Domain

Calhoon, J.,
delivered the opinion of the court.
We are driven to the conclusion that the decree of the court below must have been the result of an opinion that the agreement between Esau Harness and the grantor of appellant that, in consideration of the advance money to perfect his homestead entry and get his patent, Esau would sell the timber on the land in controversy, was against public policy and void, and made void also the subsequent sale of the timber to reimburse for that advance. We are not in accord with that view. Rev. St. U. S., secs. 2290, 2291, 2296 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, pp. 1389, 1390, 1398), with Gould & Tucker’s notes, vol. 1, p. 537. On the testimony we cannot escape the conviction that the appellee had such notice as should put any reasonable man on inquiry, which would have disclosed the existence of the conveyance of the timber and right of way by Esau to the grantor of appellants.

Reversed, and decree here in accordance with the prayer of the hill.