Hardy v. Hartman
Hardy v. Hartman
Opinion of the Court
It is not necessary to dispose of this case, to enter the field of observation or discussion suggested by the name of the Pearl Hiier Navigation and Improvement Company. It is not shown by the record that the company ever made or filed the bond required by law, as the foundation of its right or title to the land in controversy, nor does it appear from the record, that any patent signed by the Governor and countersigned by the Secretary of State, was ever issued to the company, for the land in question, or for any land.
The act of 1811, by which the company was created, did not divest the State of title to the land; but on the contrary, it expressly provided that the patents to the lands signed by the Governor and countersigned by the Secretary of State, should be issued by the State to the company, and it was made by the act a condition precedentJ;o this being done, that the company should file in the office of the Secretary of State, a bond with security, in the sum of fifty thousand dollars, and that the same should be approved by the Governor. There is a bond in the record which was filed in the office of the Secretary of State and approved by the Governor, but it does not purport to be the bond of the company, and.it is not, and cannot be regarded as such.
The proposition is too plain for argument, that if a patent issued for the land, without these conditions being complied with, it was void.
Affirmed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- J. C. Hardy v. F. H Hartman
- Cited By
- 5 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- .1. Grant on Land. Condition precedent. Title passes, when. An act of the legislature which grants certain State lands, but requires that the grantee shall, within a stated time, file in the office of Secretary of State a prescribed bond, to be approved by the Governor, and that upon the filing and approval of such bond a patent for the lands, signed by the Governor and countersigned by the Secretary of State, shall issue to the grantees named in the act, “which patent shall vest the fee simple of said lands in’’such grantee, does not divest the State of title to such lands until the issuance of the patent, after filing and approval of the bond required. 2. Same. Bond and patent provided for. Bond in question insufficient. Effect as to patent. Case in judgment. An act of the legislature, which became a law on the 27th of March, 1871, granting certain lands to the P. K. I. & N. Co., in consideration of certain public services to be performed, provided that the companyshould, within sixty days after the passage of the act, file a bond for $50,000, conditioned as therein prescribed; and that, “upon the approval and. filing of said bond,” the Secretary of State “shall make out a patent or patents, which patent or patents shall be signed by the Governor and countersigned by the Secretary of State, which patent or patents shall vest the fee simple to said lands in said company.” A bond was filed within the sixty days allowed by the act, signed by four individuals, but not signed or sealed by the ’ company or by any one claiming to be its agent. Held, that such bond is not the bond of the P. B. I..& N. Co., and as the giving of the bond prescribed by the act was a condition precedent to the company’s right to a patent, if any was issued upon the bond referred to above, it is void. 3. Same. Issuance of patent. Emdenee. Proof made, as recited by the bill of exceptions sent to this court, “ that a patent issued to said company for the lands in controversy,” does not show the issuance of such a patent as was provided for by the legislative act above mentioned, where neither the original or any copy of such patent was offered in evidence.