Ashley v. Hill
| Decision Date | 01 October 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 20144,20144 |
| Citation | 375 P.2d 337,150 Colo. 563 |
| Parties | Lalah M. ASHLEY, Plaintiff in Error, v. George W. HILL, John N. Hankins, Ella H. Hankins, Marjorie L. Woodworth, and all unknown persons who claim any interest in the subject matter of this action, Defendants in Error. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Ben L. Wright, Jr., Denver, for plaintiff in error.
Haskell, Crandell, Flynn & Cochran, Denver, for defendants in error.
We will refer to the parties by name or as they appeared in the trial court where plaintiff in error was plaintiff and defendants in error were defendants.
The controversy has to do with the ownership as between plaintiff and defendants Hankins of the following property: The Qualla Millsite, U. S. Mineral Survey 56B, as distinguished from the Qualla Lode, Survey 56A (not in contention here) in the Deer Creek Mining District in Jefferson county. The only other party who has appeared here, or in the trial court, is the defendant Marjorie L. Woodworth who is a vendee under a contract of sale and purchase with the defendants Hankins relating to a portion of the millsite.
The question for determination is whether a land re-survey which established that an error was made in the legal description of the millsite in a United States patent which was issued under an earlier survey, worked an ouster of a subsequent patentee and his successors in interest of that portion of real property conveyed by a later patent which is embraced within the corrected description of the millsite. For a proper understanding of the case a consideration of undisputed facts is essential.
The original government survey field notes and land plat made in 1883 showed the millsite (except a small portion) as being in the NW 1/4 of Section 24, Township 6 South, Range 70 West of the 6th Principal Meridian. A patent based upon that survey was issued by the United States in September, 1887, to the locator George W. Hill, a non-appearing defendant herein, which was properly recorded in 1901.
Plaintiff's title to the millsite is deraigned through the Hill patent, a treasurer's deed covering a fractional interest issued in 1922, and a quit-claim deed from her immediate grantor, one Helen V. Hurliman, dated July 28, 1934. Plaintiff's deed described the property in conformity with the original survey of the millsite and was placed of record in Jefferson county in August, 1934.
The defendants John and Ella Hankins claim to be the owners of the NE1/4 SE1/4 (Lots 6 and 9) of Section 23, and the NW 1/4 SW 1/4 of Section 24, township and range aforesaid, except certain parcels not involved in this litigation. Their title originates in two United States patents issued to others in December 1904 and April 1931, respectively, both of record. The land described in the 1931 patent is not directly involved here, except in so far as it is a part of the whole tract of the defendants. The immediate grantor of said defendants was Jeanette Weakly, as administratrix of the estate of Per J. Sea, deceased. Sea was one of the patentees and also was the grantee of the other patentee. The deed to the Hankinses was dated and acknowledged July 13 and was recorded July 16, 1956. The two patents for these lands were not limited by any exception or exclusion of the Qualla Millsite. They and each of them were outright grants by the United States to the defendants' predecessors in title, subject to the usual exceptions and reservations.
Each of the three government patents under consideration describes different real property and none in and of itself unassisted by land survey field notes or plats conflicts with any other; hence, the record title of the parties as shown by the United States patents, alone, is not in contention. The locus by re-survey of the Qualla Millsite in the lands of the Hankinses created the controversy.
The cause of the dispute relates back to a dependent re-survey by the United States Supervisor of Surveys and the preparation in accordance therewith and the acceptance in 1927 of supplemental plats of the aforesaid two sections of land (and Section 26, not directly involved here) by the Land Department. They show the Qualla Millsite as being approximately one-half mile south from its situs established by original survey. In November 1956 (and July 1958) copies of the supplemental plat of said Section 23, and in July 1958, a copy covering Section 24, were filed in the office of the Clerk and Recorder of Jefferson county.
Plaintiff's action in the trial court was commenced under Rule 105,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hamilton v. Noble Energy, Inc., 09CA0236.
...Once real property has been conveyed by a land patent, the grantee's rights in that property are fixed. See, e.g., Ashley v. Hill, 150 Colo. 563, 567, 375 P.2d 337, 339 (1962). Thus, the undisputed effect of the 1875 issuance of the patent from the BLM was to vest in the Railroad those righ......
-
United States v. Doyle, No. 710-70.
...run on the ground controls. United States v. State Investment Co., 264 U.S. 206, 212, 44 S.Ct. 289, 68 L.Ed. 639; Ashley v. Hill, 150 Colo. 563, 375 P.2d 337, 339. It does not matter that the boundary was incorrect as originally established. A precisely accurate resurvey cannot defeat owner......
-
U.S. v. Reimann
...v. Powell, supra; United States v. State Investment Company et al., 264 U.S. 206, 44 S.Ct. 289, 68 L.Ed. 639 (1924); Ashley v. Hill, 150 Colo. 563, 375 P.2d 337 (1962); 43 U.S.C.A. 772. The government has no power to control 'previously disposed of lands.' Moore v. Robbins, 96 U.S. 530, 24 ......