Jones v. Gulf Refining Co.

Counsel suggest error in our conclusion that the presumption — that the patent conveyed a fee simple title — is builded upon another presumption that the State had theretofore parted with such title. It is further urged that such presumptions must include also the fact that after the State had parted with the fee simple title it was validly assessed and sold for unpaid taxes.

In our former opinion, Jones v. State, 32 So.2d 435, we referred to Caruth v. Gillespie, 109 Miss. 679, 68 So. 927, but we did not draw fully upon its resources for the reason that, under Code 1942, Section 6596, the…