O'Brien v. Harrison

• Decision Date: 21 April 1882
• Citation: 59 Iowa 686,12 N.W. 256
• Parties: O'BRIEN v. HARRISON AND OTHERS.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

59 Iowa 686

12 N.W. 256

O'BRIEN

v.HARRISON AND OTHERS.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Filed April 21, 1882.

Appeal from Palo Alto district court.

Action to quiet the title to certain land. The defendants, by a cross-bill, set up title to the land in defendant T. W. Harrison, and prayed that his title be quieted. There was a decree dismissing plaintiff's petition and quieting the title in defendant T. W. Harrison. Plaintiff appeals.Soper & Crawford, for appellant.

T. W. Harrison, for appellees.

BECK, J.

1. The conflicting titles of the respective parties to the land in controversy have a common source in John O'Brien. The plaintiff claims the land under a deed executed by him. Defendant T. W. Harrison claims the land under a sheriff's deed made pursuant to a sale upon a judgment in favor of John O'Brien against plaintiff in this case, in an action upon a contract between the parties, whereby it was claimed plaintiff became bound to support John O'Brien, his father. Upon this judgment a sheriff's sale and deed were made to James A. White, who conveyed the land to Catherine Murray, and she conveyed it to defendant T. W. Harrison. We are required to pass upon the validity of the title under the sheriff's deed. We find the following facts upon the evidence presented in the record, which are to be considered in the decision of the case:

(1) The judgment upon which the land was sold was rendered in May, 1876, and execution issued thereon in July following, and in August it was levied upon the land in controversy. (2) Prior to the sale John O'Brien died, having disposed of his property by will. Catherine Murray is a devisee under the will. She is a daughter of the devisor, John O'Brien. (3) Before the sale of the land upon execution, but after the levy, William O'Brien, the defendant in the judgment and the plaintiff in this case, perfected an appeal, but did not supersede the judgment. (4) The land was sold to James A. White without redemption, and a deed immediately executed, for the reason that an appeal had been taken in the case. White conveyed to Catherine Murray, and she to defendant T. W. Harrison. (5) By the decree in the action it was declared that the title of the land in controversy was vested in William O'Brien, and judgment was rendered against him for $895.75 and costs. Upon the appeal this court decided that John O'Brien was not entitled to recover a money judgment against William, and that William's title to the land in dispute was valid. See 47 Iowa, 392. But in the action another matter was involved. There was a contract between the parties that John should convey to William certain other lands in consideration of the support of John and his wife. It was held upon the appeal that under this contract neither party was entitled to affirmative relief further than that the contract, so far as it constituted a cloud upon the title of the land described in it, should be set aside and de clared of no effect. A decree in accord with this opinion was entered in this court. By this decree William recovered the costs of the appeal, but it was ordered that the court below should make an equitable apportionment of the costs of that court in harmony with our decision, and the right of William by motion, at the next term of the court below, to demand such apportionment was secured by the decree. The decision and decree of this court was after the sheriff's sale and deed, and the deed executed by White to Catherine Murray. The deed to Harrison by Murray was executed before that decree.

The foregoing are undisputed facts of the case. Other matters, about which there is conflict of evidence, will be hereafter stated.

2. It appears from the foregoing statement that defendant's title is based upon a sheriff's sale and deed under a judgment, which was subsequently reversed and set aside on appeal to this court. We must now determine whether plaintiff's title is divested by the sale and deed.

Code, § 3199, provides that “property acquired by a purchaser in good faith under a judgment subsequently reversed, shall not be affected by such reversal.” The defendant and his grantors under the sheriff's deed must be shown to be good-faith purchasers to authorize a decision supporting the validity of that deed. A claimant of land who has not paid in full therefor cannot be regarded as a good-faith purchaser. Kittridge v. Chapman, 36 Iowa, 348;Syllyman v. King, 36 Iowa, 207. The evidence clearly shows that White did not pay his bid made at the sheriff's sale for the land. He paid the costs, amounting to $146.70, and no more. The land was conveyed by White to Catherine Murray for the consideration of $1,200, but she paid to White only the sum that had been paid by him. Under the rule above stated, these parties are not bona fide purchasers. With Harrison the case is no better. He was the attorney of John O'Brien, both in the supreme court and the court below, and is chargeable with knowledge of the appeal...