Bazille v. Murray

• Decision Date: 18 January 1889
• Citation: 40 Minn. 48,41 N.W. 238
• Parties: BAZILLE v MURRAY ET AL.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

40 Minn. 48

41 N.W. 238

BAZILLEvMURRAY ET AL.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Jan. 18, 1889.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

1. Where, in an action to recover possession of real property, the complaint tenders an issue on the title of the plaintiff, basing his right to the possession upon such title, a judgment in his favor upon the merits is conclusive upon the question of title at that time between the parties and their privies; and in a subsequent action between them, to determine adverse claim to the premises, will be a bar to any claim of title by the defendant under a deed executed to him prior to the former action. It is immaterial whether in the first action the defendant pleaded and presented his claim of title under such deed; the judgment is conclusive in the second action upon the question of title, not only as to every matter which was offered and received to defeat plaintiff's claim, but also as to any other admissible matter which might have been offered for that purpose.

2. The fact that by reason of lapse of time such judgment can no longer be enforced by execution will not affect its force as an estoppel.

3. An annual entry for a short time upon uninclosed wild land to cut natural grass upon part of it will not, of itself, work disseisin of the owner, and create adverse possession against him.¹

Appeal from district court, Ramsey county, BRILL, Judge.

Action by Anna J. Bazille against William P. and C. C. Murray to determine the title to certain real property. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal.

H. J. Horn, for appellants.

Clark, Eller & How, for respondent.

MITCHELL, J.

Action to determine adverse claim to real property. The plaintiff alleges that she is the owner in fee-simple. The defendants deny plaintiff's title, and allege title in themselves. Upon the trial, the evidence introduced to support defendants' claim of title consisted - First, of a deed from Louis Laravie (also plaintiff's remote grantor) to defendant W. P. Murray and one Charles Bazille, dated August 23, and recorded August 25, 1856; and, second, evidence tending to show adverse possession by defendant C. C. Murray for more than 20 years. The judgment rendered April 22, 1862, in an action brought by Charlotte Laravie and George Allen (plaintiff's grantors) against Charles Bazille and defendant W. P. Murray, to recover possession of these premises, is a bar to any claim of title by W. P. Murray under the deed referred to as against the plaintiffs in that action, or their grantee, the plaintiff in the present action. The complaint in the former action tendered a material issue on the title of Allen and Charlotte Laravie; their right to the possession being based upon such title. The complaint in the present action tenders the same issue of title,-the right of the plaintiff to have defendants' adverse claim adjudged unfounded being likewise based upon her title. The fact that the judgment in the former action was not that the plaintiffs recover the title, but the possession, does not prevent the judgment from being an estoppel as to the rights of the respective parties upon which the right of possession depended. It is not the fruit of the litigation that constitutes the estoppel, but the facts put in issue and found, upon which the recovery is based. It is said that because the answer in the former action is missing, it cannot be ascertained what the issues were, or whether the defendants' claim of title under the deed was ever presented or passed upon. This is wholly immaterial. The judgment is equally conclusive upon the question of title whether defendants did or did not plead or present in evidence their claim under the deed. The present action, although different in form and in the precise nature of the relief sought, is in effect a second action upon the same claim, and involving the same issue, viz., the title to the premises; and therefore the judgment in the former action is a finality upon the question of title, not only as to every matter which was offered and received to sustain or defeat plaintiff's claim, but also as to any other admissible matter which might have been offered for that purpose. The issue of title having been tendered by the complaint, the defendants were...