Appeal from Izard Circuit Court; Dene H. Coleman, Judge;

STATEMENT BY THE COURT.

Appellants brought suit of ejectment against appellee for the recovery of possession of certain lands in Izard County, alleging that they were the owners thereof, as heirs to their father who homesteaded the same and died in possession thereof and that the defendant was holding said lands under the claim of being the owner thereof through certain mesne conveyances from a tax purchaser at the tax sale on June 12, 1899, which it was alleged was void for certain reasons set out.

Defendant 'answered, admitting being in possession of the lands, under the tax deed and mesne conveyances from the purchaser at the sale, and alleged that he had made improvements and paid taxes thereon, specifying the value of the improvements and the amount of taxes paid under color of title and believing himself to be the owner.

Testimony was introduced relative to the value of the improvements placed upon the land by the defendant and his predecessors in title since the conveyance at the tax sale, which was shown to be void.

Appellant offered some testimony tending to show that about the time that L. A. Chase, one of defendant’s grantors, was in possession of the lands and when most of the improvements were made that certain waste was committed 'by the cutting and removing of valuable timber therefrom, ¡but no testimony was offered showing that the waste was committed by said Chase or any of the other of defendant’s grantors.

The court directed the jury to find in favor of the plaintiffs for the possession of the land, the amount found by them to be a reasonable rental value thereof for three years prior to the filing of the suit. It also submitted the question under a proper instruction as to whether the defendant and those under whom he claimed made the improvements upon the lands, honestly believing they were owners thereof at the time, under color of title and directing the jury to find the value of the improvements and the amount of taxes paid.

It also instructed the jury that the defendant was only liable for such waste as was committed by him and not chargeable with any waste which may have been committed by his predecessors.

The jury.returned a verdict according to the court’s direction as to the possession, found the rental value of the lands, the value of the improvements made by the defendant and his predecessors and those under whom he claimed and .the amount of taxes paid, ;and from the judgment thereon, plaintiffs prosecute this appeal.

All the issues in this case come within the statutes, as reinforced 'by our homestead provisions for minors. Kirby’s Dig., § § 2745 to 2753, 7976-7978, 3282-3, Appellee was not entitled to improvements under section 2761, Kirby’s Digest. Ib, § 7095. Nor under the Betterment Act. He should be held for waste, lb., 2755,7976-7978.

…

Citation profile

Relationships

How this case has been treated — in progress