Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 6.djvu/36

 24 FEDERAL REPOSTEE. �of limitations runs upon the deed. I think it does, and that the demurrer must be sustained. Witliin the decisions of the supreme court of Wisconsin, which I feel bound to follow on this question, I think there can be little room for doubt. It is claimed by complainant that the tax deed is void, and therefore the statute does not run upon it. But, within the cases of Marsh v. The Supervisors, 42 Wis. 502 ; Philleo v. Hiles, 42 Wis. 527; and The Oconto Co. v. Jeirard, 46 Wis, 324, the deed being void does not prevent the application of the statute. And such I understand to be the uniform holding of that court and the settled construction placed upon the stat- ute. Edgerton v. Bird, 6 Wis. 527;' Lawrence v. Kinney, 32 Wis. 281; Wood v. Meyer, 36 Wis. 308; Flill v, Kricke, 11 Wis. 442; Knox v. Cleveland, 13 Wis. 245; Milledge v. Cole- man, 47 Wis. 184. �The deed in this case sought to be set aside is conceded to be perfectly regular on its face as a first deed. It is, in faet, just such a deed as. the defendant was entitled to receive when he took out the irregular deed on the thirty-first of May. It is sufficient on its face, and does prima facie convey a com- plete title in fee to the land. It is only by going outside and beyond the deed itself and the record thereof that the irregu- larity can be shown which would avail to avoid the deed, if the inquiry had been instituted within the time when such inquiry would have been proper. See Guest v. City of Brook- lyn, 69 N. Y. 573 ; Marsh v. City of Brooklyn, 59 N. Y. 283. �If Comstock had brought an action of ejectment to recover the lands, then it is clear that the introduction of this deed in evidence would have supported his claim of title, and that it would devolve upon the former owner to show affirmatively the irregularities which would go to render the deed void in fact. This is one of the very inquiries intended by the statute to close. The statute of limitations is one of repose, and it would answer but a poor purpose if it had no eflfect to eut off inquiries, the resuit of which would be to show that the deed was not merely voidable, but void in fact. Here the officer had full power and jurisdiction to issue a tax deed, and the defendant was entitled to one conveying full title to the land. Under the ��� �