Underdown v. Desha
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Independence Chancery Court; Lyman F. Reeder, Chancellor; Patents should not be set aside except upon the most convincing evidence. 119 Iowa 6; 97 Am. St. Rep. 279. It is not possible to divest the title of defendant and allow the commissioner to issue a deed after hearing a •contest, as the State was not a party and had parted with its title.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Independence Chancery Court; Lyman F. Reeder, Chancellor; Patents should not be set aside except upon the most convincing evidence. 119 Iowa 6; 97 Am. St. Rep. 279. It is not possible to divest the title of defendant and allow the commissioner to issue a deed after hearing a •contest, as the State was not a party and had parted with its title. No fraud is claimed, or shown on part of defendant against the State, and a court of chancery could not vest hack the title in the State. 59 Ark. 187; 11 Id. 120; 51 Id. 390. It is not claimed that defendant committed any fraud but that…
1Opinion of the CourtSmith, J.
Appellees filed a complaint asking the cancellation of a deed executed to appellant on April 3, 1918, by the State Land Commissioner. The complaint imputes no bad faith to the commissioner but alleges that under the circumstances the deed was a fraud upon their rights.
The deed was executed under the authority of act 282 of Acts 1917 (Acts 1917, page 1468), entitled “An act to provide for the sale and disposition of islands formed or which may form in navigable rivers or streams of the State which belong to the State of Arkansas, and for other purposes,” and the land sued for was conveyed to…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Conway v. ShuckSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1942
- Jones v. EuperSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1930
- Wilson v. GuthrieSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1922
- Sakaba Oil Company v. ParishSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1927