Summary

Portrait of James Moore Wayne James Moore Wayne Moore v. Brown — Opinion of the Court

If the defendant's title should be a connected title in law or equity, supposing no other to exist on the ground, then if he proves seven years' possession holding under it, the statute shall aid him, although the plaintiff may be able to show, by the production of his own title or that of others, that the title did not in law or fact pass to the defendant.'
The deed offered in evidence in this case was not such as the law would prim a facie consider good. It is not good when tested by its own face, but it is absolutely void upon its own face.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of James Moore Wayne James Moore Wayne Moore v. Brown — Opinion of the Court

If they do not examine, and shall buy land exposed to sale for taxes against the law, they do so at their own risk, and it will be presumed against them that they know that the deeds given under such circumstances are made in violation of official duty and of the law. It cannot be made the foundation of an adverse possession under color of title against the true owner of the land, whose title to it, the law says, can only be divested in a certain way for a failure to pay taxes due upon the land. We do not put the conclusion upon the point exclusively upon the fact that it is a void deed
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of James Moore Wayne James Moore Wayne Moore v. Brown — Opinion of the Court

Before the limitation of the act can operate, it must be shown by one claiming its protection, that he has been in actual possession of the land to which it is sought to be applied for seven years before the commencement of the suit, by a connected title in law or equity, deducible of record from the State or the United States, or from any public officer or other person authorized by law to sell such land for the non-payment of taxes.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature