Hunter v. Aylworth
Hunter v. Aylworth
Opinion of the Court
— On the 21st day of March, 1856, Aylworth obtained of the school fund commissioner of Iowa county the following written contract:
“ Contract made and entered into between Jefferson G. Brandon, as School Fund Commissioner of Iowa county, &c., and Henry Aylworth, by which the former bargains and sells to the latter, his heirs and assigns, the northwest quarter of section No. 16, township 80, range 12, in consideration of $520, $130 of which is paid in hand, and the residue, $390, secured by promissory note of Aylworth, of even date with contract, payable on or before ten years from date, with interest at ten per cent., payable on Jan. 1st of each year, at office of the Commissioner, conditioned that if the said note be paid according to the terms, Aylworth, his heirs or assigns, should ■ receive a patent for said lands; and in case of failure of payment of any part of the note as due, former payments should be forfeited, and the land subject to sale by the Commissioner, or foreclosure of the contract, at his option.”
On the first day of January, 1858, Aylworth assigned this contract in writing thereon to the plaintiff, for five hundred and forty dollars, which was subsequently paid by the plaintiff to Aylworth, with interest. In 1859 the plaintiff took possession of the land described in the contract, and had five acres of breaking done thereon. He never afterwards occupied, cultivated, or improved the land in any manner. In 1862 he
On the 8th day of May, 1866, Iowa county, by the Clerk of the District Court, sold the west one-half of the land thus purchased by it, to Aylworth for $160, which being duly paid the fact was certified to the Governor, who executed a'patent therefor to Aylworth, July 9th, 1866. In the same year the county sold the other half of the quarter section to one Allen, for $160.
Plaintiff brings this suit to redeem from Aylworth the eighty-acre tract to which he holds title.
It is very clear that Iowa county has no interest in the land, having sold it to Aylworth, who, upon the proper certificate, has received a patent from the State, whereby the entire title and interest in the land has passed from both the county and the State to Aylworth; and the only inquiry is, whether or not he holds the title as trustee of the plaintiff, or subject to redemption by him.
The plaintiff, therefore, was property permitted to redeem from Aylworth by paying him the sum paid by the latter to the county for the land, with interest and taxes paid by him, and the value of the improvements made by appellant thereon, deducting the value of the rents and profits while the land was in the actual possession of defendant. The county has no ground to claim that Hunter shall pay anything to it, since, as we have seen, the county and also the State have parted with all right and title to the land. The county bought in the land at the sheriff’s sale in satisfaction of the judgment. ' It sold it again and has received payment in full of the sum for which the land was last sold. It can no longer have a claim on the plaintiff in respect to this land.
The decree of the Court below will be
Affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.