Muse v. Richards
Muse v. Richards
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the court.
There was no error in the action of the learned court below in'peremptorily instructing the jury to find for the appellee. Her evidence met, substantially, every requirement of law as declared in our adjudications from Fore v. Williams, 35 Miss., 533, to Dowd v. Railway Co., 68 Ib., 159.
It is true that the certificate of the commissioner of the general land-office, of date July 20, 1853, describes the lot as in range 5, simply, without the addition of the word east or west; but this eannot avail to reverse the judgment complained of. The appellant removed the necessity for proof by appellee that the lands were in range 5 east, by his admission, on offering his tax-deed from the auditor, that the lands involved in the controversy were identical with those in his proffered deed. But, quite independently of this, the courts will take judicial knowledge of the fact that there is but one lot 9, section 28, township 9, range 5 in the surveys of the United States government in what is known as the Columbus land district in this state, and that- said range is east, and that there is no such range west. This fact is matter of eommon, not to say universal, knowledge and concern touching an official, governmental act, of which the courts must take knowledge.
Affirmed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- B. F. Muse v. L. E. Richards
- Cited By
- 4 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- 1. Ejectment. Proof of title. ■ Patent. Certificate from land-office. A plaintiff in ejectment who introduces a patent from the state for the locus in quo, which is therein referred to as swamp-land, donated to the state by the act of congress of September 28, 1850, together with a certificate from the general land-office, showing that it is included in the list of swamp and overflowed lands inuring to the state under said act, without other proof, makes out a case. Fore v. Williams, 35 Miss., 533; Dowd v. Railway Co., 68 lb., 159. 2. Same. Evidence. Locus in quo. Identification. Admission. In ejectment, where plaintiff’s evidence describes the locus in quo by section, township and range, but fails to show whether the range is east or west, if the defendant offers to prove that the land in controversy was sold for taxes and purchased by him, this is an admission that the land is the same as embraced in his proffered deed, and obviates the necessity of any further identification. 3. Description oe Land. Government survey. Judicial notice. In ejectment, identification of the land as “ lot 9, section 28, township 9, range 5, Madison county, Mississippi, containing 40.30. acres,” is sufficient. The court takes judicial notice that, according to the United States government survey, the range is east in this instance, and it is unnecessary to prove this.