Bardon v. Land & River Improvement Co.
Citations
- 157 U.S. 327
- 15 S. Ct. 650
- 39 L. Ed. 719
- 1895 U.S. LEXIS 2206
Syllabus
<p>Although section 3186 of the Revised Statutes of Wisconsin may have enlarged the ordinary equitable action to quiet title and remove a ckrad, the Circuit Court of the United States, sitting in that District, may take jurisdiction of a bill properly brought under its provisions.</p> <p>A person in possession, claiming under a tax deed, under which he had obtained title, may institute such a suit.</p> <p>The jurisdiction of a suit so instituted is not affected by the provision in section 1197 of the Revised Statutes of Wisconsin of 1878 conferring for three years a right of action by the grantee in a tax deed against the owner -to bar him and his grantees from claiming the land, nor by the provisions of § 22, c. 138, of the Revised Statutes of 1858.</p> <p>Questions affecting the validity of a tax deed of real estate in a State must be disposed of in accordance with the interpretation of the' statutes of the State by its highest judicial tribunal.</p> <p>In Wisconsin when a tax deed is in due form and recorded in the proper office, and the lands described therein remain vaebnt and unoccupied for three years or more after the recording thereof, the tax title claimant is deemed to be in constructive possession, the statute of limitations runs in his favor, and the original owner is barred from attacking the validity of the tax deed.</p> <p>The introduction of certain evidence by the appellee held not to be a waiver of its right to rely on the statute of limitations.</p> <p>In considering the acts and proceedings of county boards acting under Rev. Stats. Wis. of 1858, c. 13, § 28,'they must be liberally construed. •</p> <p>The Revised Statutes of Wisconsin of 1858 provided that the register of deeds should keep a general index, each page of which should be divided into eight columns, with heads to the respective columns, as follows : “ Time of reception. Name of grantor. Name of grantee. Description of land. Name of instrument. Volume and page where recorded. To whom
Judges: Fuller
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
18 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Smyth v. AmesSupreme Court· 1898-03-07· cited 903×
- Smith v. ReevesSupreme Court· 1900-05-14· cited 303×
- Pusey & Jones Co. v. HanssenSupreme Court· 1923-04-09· cited 259×
- Humble Oil & Refining Co. v. Sun Oil Co.Fifth Circuit· 1951-09-20· cited 80×
- Cameron Estates, Inc. v. DeeringNew York Court of Appeals· 1954-12-02· cited 58×
- Darragh v. H. Wetter Manuf'g Co.Eighth Circuit· 1897-01-18· cited 50×
- United States Life Ins. v. CableSeventh Circuit· 1900-01-02· cited 16×
- Campbell v. City of OlneySupreme Court· 1923-06-04· cited 15×
- Wahl v. FranzEighth Circuit· 1900-03-12· cited 14×
- Mathews Slate Co. v. MathewsD. Massachusetts· 1906-05-11· cited 10×
- Alliance Trust Co. v. HallD. Idaho· 1935-07-20· cited 7×
- Farr v. Hobe-Peters Land Co.Seventh Circuit· 1910-10-18· cited 7×
- Ashton v. GlazeNinth Circuit· 1938-03-14· cited 6×
- Dunn v. Wilson & Co.D. Delaware· 1943-08-25· cited 5×
- Alderson v. DoleFirst Circuit· 1896-04-24· cited 5×
- Martin Gauge Co. v. PollockN.D. Illinois· 1918-04-24· cited 4×
- Southern Pac. Co. v. Western Pac. Ry. Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern California· 1906-03-19· cited 2×
- ETC Northeast Field Services, LLC v. Gregory D. MuseCourt of Chancery of Delaware· 2024-05-31
Cites
5 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.