
    Wallace v. Sexton & Son et al.
    1. Tax deed: statute of limitations. In an action by the owner of land in fee simple, who has been in continued possession, to set aside a tax deed to the same which was recorded more than five years prior to the commencement of the suit, the holder of the tax deed is barred from setting up title thereunder.
    
      Appeal from Warren District Court.
    
    Wednesday, October 4.
    Action in chancery to quiet title to lands. The petition alleges that plaintiff holds the fee simple title to the property, and that defendants set up a claim thereto under a tax deed, which is averred to be void on account of certain matters set out in the petition. It is also shown that the tax deed under which defendants claim title was recorded more than five years prior to the commencement of this suit; that plaintiff has, for that time, been in the possession of the land, and it is claimed that defendants are barred from setting up their title to the land under Code, § 902.
    To this petition defendants filed an answer and cross-bill, setting up their tax deed and praying that the title may be quieted in them. They also claim that plaintiff’s action is barred by Code, § 902.
    There was a decree granting the relief prayed for by plaintiff. Defendants appeal.
    
      Bryan, Maxwell & 8 severs, for appellants.
    
      Henderson & Berry, for appellee.
   Beck, J.

The plaintiff established by the evidence title to the land in herself, and possession for many years. The defendants introduced a tax deed recorded more than five years prior to the commencement of this action, upon which he claims title to the land. The case is within the rule established by this court in Laverty et al. v. Sexton & Son, 41 Iowa, 435, and Peck v. Sexton & Son, 41 Iowa, 566. This is conceded by defendants’ counsel, but they ask a review of these decisions, insisting that they should be overruled because they are in conflict with principle. They present an able and ingenious argument, assailing the doctrines of this court, to which we have given careful consideration. We are of the opinion our conclusions, announced in our former opinions, pass the ordeal of their criticism without the detection of error therein. There exists no reason for overruling those decisions.

Following these cases, the decree of the District Court is

Affirmed.  