Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 5.djvu/793

COWLt «. MONSON,'^ 78l �form. Thifd'. The ameiant for which the Iftnd sued ôoM, being $9.36, is too muchr and the plaintiff's coufasel bas made a caldillatiou to sbow tkiat th« lànd -veas sbld for 16 cents too miich. Though this, if true, might avoid the sale, if the defendant was relying on the deedand tax proceedings alone, it is clear the defect does not appear on the face of the deed itself. The plaintiff's coimsel insists that there are nineteen instances in which the deed in evidence is defect- ive as comparedwith the statute form; but,àB lam unable to see much force in those defects which have been pointed eut, it may be fair to conclude that there is not much more in the other 16 that have not been specially noted, and to which the attention of the court has not been called. I think the deed fair and valid on its face, and sufficient, prima faoie, to convey a good title to the land. �The plaintiff,;fiirther to defend against the defendant'» claim., is' sworn ^a8 a ■witnesB and testifies that he paidihe tax on the lànd for the ye&r 3863, for which the sale wasmade on which i the deed wàs iBsaed; and he introduces' a bumt and miltilated reeeipt, sigiied by J. .P. Perrei Oentil, connty ireasurer of ■■ Grawf ord «ounty^ «nà icôntaining a description of this landj Witb other, butnotdate.' About two-ithirds, appar- ently, of theraeçiptarô buraed^away; but the plaintifl'Bweàrtf it is the reeeipt for his taxes on this^land for 1862.. The def eiiid'< antintroduced T^tnesses who swear that they are aioquainted with J. P. Perret Gentil'» handwriting, ahd that in their opinion thia is not his jgenuihe signature. Plaintiff's witnesees testify they think it is; so tha* tlœievidence in regard to the payment of the taxes fcurthàipartiçularyear leavesthe ques- tion! in somedoubt. Bat, fromtheview I have'taken of the caee, r do not find it necessarytb determine that question. It is claimed by plaintiff's counsel that inasmuch as the statute makes the tax deed of no validity when the taxes have been paid, there ean be no adverse possession fouaded on a tax deed so.illcgally issued; and if none on the tax deed, then none on the quitclaim to defendant, which it is insisted is ônly a release or conveyance of no more or greater title than the grantee in the tax deed had. But I cannot accede to Ihis ����