LAMB v. FABRELL. 5
V LAMB ·v. FARRELL.
(Circuit Court, E. D. Arkansas. April Term, 1884.)
1. Rsmoviu. or Cnouns mmm TITLE—RULE IN Aiuurrsss.
lt is the established doctrine of the supreme court of Arkansas that a court
of equity has jurisdiction of a suit to remove a cloud from title to land when
the claim or lien which constitutes the cloud purports ou its face to be valid,
and the defect in it can be made to appear only by extrinsic evidence, and there
is no adequate remedy at law. In the application of this rule, that court holds
the jurisdiction exists when the plaintiff is the holder of the legal title and in
possession, or the land is unoccupied; and that when the plaintifE’s title is
equitable, or a junior legal title with prior or superior equities, the jurisdiction
exists without regard to the question of possession.
2. Sryrn DECISIONS——FEDERAL Oouirrs Fomow, wmmr.
Where the decisions of the supreme court of a state on the subject of titles to
_ land, or the mode of acquiring or quieting titles thereto, are settled and uni-
form, they are accepted by the federal courts as conclusive evidence of the law
of the state on that subject, and have a binding force as nearly equivalent to a
positive statute as judicial decisions can have.
3. SAIiIE—STA'i`E Srarutrizs AND Bran: Decisions.
State statutes relating to the removal of clouds from title to land are obliga-
tory upon the federal courts, and a uniform and stable body of judicial decis-
ions on that subject, from the court of last resort of the state, is equally ob- '
ligatory. A ·
4. WHEN Equrrr nas Junxsnrorioiv ro Rimuovn Cnorm.
** Whenever a deed or other instrument exists which may be vexatiously or in-
juriously used against a party after the evidence to impeach or invalidate it is
ost, or which may throw a cloud or suspicion over his title or interests, and he
cannot immediately protect or maintain his rights by any course of proceed-
ing at law, a court of equity will afford relief by directing the instrument to be t
delivered up and canceled, or by making any other decree which justice and the
rights of the parties may require." _
5. SAME-—S*1·A·ru*rn Nor Naomsssnr.
It is highly probable some of the statutes assuming to confer on courts of
equity jurisdiction to remove clouds from title had their origin in a misconcep-
tion of the inherent jurisdiction of such courts. They do not confer a more
extensive remedy than exists by virtue of the customary jurisdiction of chan-
cery courts. They may regulate the mode of proceeding and form of decree,
but they are not necessary to the exercise of the jurisdiction. ‘
6. Onrou v. Surrn, 18 How. 263. '
The case of Orton v. Smith, 18 How. 263, examined, and shown not to decide
anything contrary to the principles here announced.
7. Tax DE’ia1>—I·rs VALUE as Evrnezvcn. '
In Arkansas a tax deed is‘prt·mafacz'e evidence of the regularit of the tax
proceedings leading up to the deed. The act declaring the deed, should be
conclusive evidence of the regularity of the previous proceedings. was held to
be unconstitutional by the supreme court of the state.
8. Wamuivr T0 Connor 'l`AX—ABSESSOR’B OATH.
The failure of the assessor to authenticate the assessment roll by his oath, as
required by law, and the fact that no warrant for the collection of the tax was
issued to the collector by the clerk, as required by law, are irregularities that
vitiate the tax sale and deed. `
9. Rronrs or- Punouasmt yr A Von: Tax SALE.
In Arkansas the purchaser of land at a void tax sale may recover the taxes,
interest, penalty, and costs of advertising charged on the land at the time
of sale, and all subsequent taxes paid by him, with interest, and the statute
creates a lien on the land in his favor for these amounts.
In Equity.