Muse v. Richards

Citations

• 70 Miss. 581

Syllabus

<p>1. Ejectment. Proof of title. ■ Patent. Certificate from land-office.</p> <p>A plaintiff in ejectment who introduces a patent from the state for the locus in quo, which is therein referred to as swamp-land, donated to the state by the act of congress of September 28, 1850, together with a certificate from the general land-office, showing that it is included in the list of swamp and overflowed lands inuring to the state under said act, without other proof, makes out a case. Fore v. Williams, 35 Miss., 533; Dowd v. Railway Co., 68 lb., 159.</p> <p>2. Same. Evidence. Locus in quo. Identification. Admission.</p> <p>In ejectment, where plaintiff’s evidence describes the locus in quo by section, township and range, but fails to show whether the range is east or west, if the defendant offers to prove that the land in controversy was sold for taxes and purchased by him, this is an admission that the land is the same as embraced in his proffered deed, and obviates the necessity of any further identification.</p> <p>3. Description oe Land. Government survey. Judicial notice.</p> <p>In ejectment, identification of the land as “ lot 9, section 28, township 9, range 5, Madison county, Mississippi, containing 40.30. acres,” is sufficient. The court takes judicial notice that, according to the United States government survey, the range is east in this instance, and it is unnecessary to prove this.</p>