Benson v. Anderson
| Decision Date | 07 June 1894 |
| Docket Number | 390 |
| Citation | 10 Utah 135,37 P. 256 |
| Court | Utah Supreme Court |
| Parties | SOPHIA V. BENSON; APPELLANT, v. NICHOLAS ANDERSON AND ANOTHER, RESPONDENTS. [1] |
See former opinion per Smith, J., 9 Utah 154.
APPEAL from the district court of the fourth judicial district, Hon James A. Miner, Judge.
Action by Sophia v. Benson against Nicholas Anderson and another to quiet title. From a decree for defendants, plaintiff appeals.
The appeal in this case was dismissed June 9, 1893, on the ground that no undertaking had been filed. See opinion per Smith J., 9 Utah 154. June 20, 1893, petition for a rehearing was denied. June 26, 1893, undertaking on appeal filed and also motion to reinstate appeal. October 28, 1893, appeal reinstated. January 12, 1894, motion to dismiss appeal denied.
Reversed and remanded.
Messrs Maloney & Perkins, for appellant.
Mr. B. H. Jones and Messrs. Kimball & Allison, for respondents.
: This was an action, brought originally in the district court, to set aside certain proceedings in the probate court of Box Elder county, and praying that plaintiff's title be quieted to certain lands which are in her possession. The record discloses that the case was tried before J. B. Barton, referee, who filed findings of fact and conclusions of law, upon which a decree was entered dismissing plaintiff's bill. The evidence is before us, and shows the following state of facts: About the year 1864 the plaintiff was the wife of one Valentine Valentinsen, and at that time, with her husband, entered upon and took possession of the land in dispute, the same being then public land of the United States. Subsequently Valentinsen died, and later the plaintiff married Bengt A. Benson, and continued to live on and cultivate this land. In 1889 one Alice Rosenbaum, --having obtained the government title to the land in controversy,--by a sufficient deed, conveyed it to the husband of plaintiff, Bengt A. Benson. On August 27, 1889, Bengt A. Benson died, leaving personal property and the land in question as his estate. Defendant Nephi P. Anderson was appointed administrator of the estate of Benson. Such proceedings were then had in the probate court that on April 15, 1890, a decree of distribution was made, distributing the entire estate, including the land in controversy, to the defendant Nicholas Anderson, and disinheriting the plaintiff entirely. Nicholas Anderson, it is conceded, was a brother of Benson, deceased. The plaintiff had notice of all proceedings in the probate court. No appeal was taken from the decree of distribution, and the time for appeal had expired when this suit was brought. During all of said proceedings, and up to the present time, plaintiff was living on the land in dispute, cultivating it, and claiming to own it. It further appears that the plaintiff is an old Danish woman, who has a very poor knowledge or understanding of the English language; that the probate proceedings were in English; that she depended wholly on others for information as to her rights, and the proceedings in the probate court. It was insisted by plaintiff that she paid Rosenbaum for the land, though, as to this, there was a conflict in the testimony. The referee, as conclusions of law, found that Nicholas Anderson was the owner in fee simple of all the land, and that plaintiff's bill should be dismissed.
It is difficult for us to see just how such a conclusion was reached, on the facts found. There is no question, in our opinion, but that the district court, sitting as a court of chancery, had power to review a decree of the probate court where the same had been obtained by fraud or mistake that had worked a positive injustice. See Pom. Eq. Jur. § 919, and cases cited in note. There is no dispute but that Bengt A. Benson died without issue. It is expressly found that plaintiff is his widow. The defendant Nicholas Anderson, it appears, is a brother of the deceased, although that fact is not expressly found. If it be true that Anderson is the brother of deceased, then plaintiff is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Weyant v. Utah Savings & Trust Co.
...591, 15 P. 769; Mohr v. Manniere, 101 U.S. 417, 25 L.Ed. 1052; Simmons v. Saul, 138 U.S. 453, 11 S.Ct. 369, 34 L.Ed. 1054; Benson v. Anderson, 10 Utah 135, 37 P. 256, Eq. Jur. section 919; William Hill Co. v. Lawler, 116 Cal. 359, 48 P. 323; Goad v. Montgomery, 119 Cal. 552, 51 P. 681, 63 A......