
    Taylor’s Devisees v. Stringer & als.
    September, 1844,
    Lewisburg.
    (Absent Beooke and Allen, J.)
    i. Sale of Land for Nonpayment of Taxes—Purchase by Deputy Sheriff—Rights of Original Owner.—Land sold by the sheriff for nonpayment of taxes, and brought by the deputy sheriff of the county in which it lies, though it afterwards passes into the possession of purchasers for valuable considera- - tion, may be recovered by the original owner, or his heirs.
    2. Same—Same—Same—Laches.—The land was sold in 1815, at which time the owner thereof was insane, and so continued until his death in 1832. The bill was filed in 1838, by his son and heir at law. The delay in bringing the suit is no bar to the recovery.
    ' In the year 1833, Thomas O. Taylor filed a bill in the circuit superior court of law and chancery for the county of Randolph, against John G. Stringer, and others, _ to recover a tract of 9998% acres of land, which had been sold in the year 1815, for the nonpayment of taxes. The bill' stated that Thomas A. Taylor, the father of the plaintiff, owned 10,000 acres of land in the county of Randolph, of which that sought to be recovered in this suit, was a part. That the sheriff of the county, in August 1815, sold the said 9998j^ acres of land, for' the nonpayment of the taxes for the years 1813-14-15, to a certain Thomas O. Williams, a deputy ^'sheriff of said county, for the sum of 7 dollars 99 cents, the amount of taxes due on the whole tract; and conveyed the same to him. That Williams, in October 1817, conveyed all his interest in the land so purchased, to Daniel Stringer, for the sum of 300 dollars. That Daniel Stringer, afterwards, on the 9th of November 1820, conveyed 1000 acres of this land to his son John G. Stringer, for natural love and affection. That said Daniel Stringer, on the 27th September 1826, executed another deed, whereby, after reciting that he had conveyed 2000 acres, part of the tract aforesaid, to his son John G. Stringer, and his daughter EJleanor, and 500 acres, another part thereof, _ to a certain Henry Camden, conveyed the residue, to wit, 7498% acres, to a certain Tilghman Hillarj', for the consideration of 3750 dollars; and that the said Daniel Stringer ánd Henry Camden, afterwards, on the 21st of June 1828, by another deed, conveyed the aforesaid 500 acres to Joshua Wood, for the consideration of 600 dollars. That these purchasers from Daniel Stringer, had taken possession of said land, and now claim the same as their own. The bill then states that the land was sold by the sheriff, at private sale ; that there were other irregularities in the sale, which are mentioned; that Thomas A. Taylor died in the year 18—, having been insane at the time of the sale of his land in 1815, and continuing so until his death ; and that the plaintiff was his sole heir at law. He then makes the purchasers of the land parties to the bill; prays that the conveyances aforesaid, may be set aside; and that the land may be decreed to him; and for general relief.
    The plaintiff having died in 1835, the suit was revived in the name Holden Rhodes and Archer L. Wooldridge, as devisees in trust for Caroline M. R. Johnson, as plaintiffs; and then the defendants filed a general demurrer to the bill; which upon the hearing, was sustained by the court, and the bill dismissed.
    *From the decree dismissing the bill, the plaintiffs obtained an appeal to this court.
    Johnson for the appellants,
    in the petition for appeal, relied ori the act of 1813, see Sess. Acts of 1813, ch. 3, $ 29, p. 22, by which the sheriff, and under sheriff, are forbidden to purchase lands sold for nonpayment of taxes; and which provides, “that if any sheriff, or deputy sheriff, shall, contrary to this provision, become the purchaser of any such land or lot, he shall forfeit and pay to the commonwealth, for the benefit of the Literary fund, the sum of four hundred dollars; and shall, moreover, hold such land or lot in trust for the absolute use and benefit of the person who owned the land at the time of the sale.” This provision of the law, he insisted, was conclusive of the right of the plaintiffs to recover, upon the facts stated in the bill; and of their right to sue in equity.
    
      
      He bad been concerned in the cause in the court below.
    
    
      
       The principal case was distinguished in Carberry v. W. Va. & P. R. Co., 44 W. Va. 263, 28 S. E Rep. 695.
    
    
      
       Laches.—See monographic note on “Laches” appended to Peers v. Barnett, 12 Gratt. 410.
    
   The court reversed the decree dismissing the bill; overruled the demurrer; and remanded the cause for farther proceedings to be had therein.  