Casey v. Casey
| Decision Date | 19 January 1899 |
| Parties | ANN CASEY v. WILLIAM CASEY, Appellant |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from Winneshiek District Court.--HON. A. N. HOBSON, Judge.
ACTION in equity to quiet title to real estate. From a decree in plaintiff's favor, defendants appeal.
Affirmed.
Willett & Willett for appellants.
L Bullis for appellee.
Plaintiff is the widow of one Timothy Casey, who died in the year 1894. Her claim to the real estate in question is founded upon the will of her husband, in which it was devised to her. Timothy Casey and his brother, the defendant William Casey, obtained title to this land jointly, a part in the year 1858 and a part in 1860. In the deeds they were both named as grantees. Both went into possession, and they continued in the joint occupation of the premises until the year 1865, when William purchased another farm some three miles distant, and moved thereon. Timothy remained in sole possession of the premises in dispute from that time until his death, and since his death such possession has been held by his widow. Plaintiff claims title by adverse possession, and also asserts that a deed was made therefor by William to Timothy, which has been lost. Both of these claims are denied, and defendant William Casey seeks to have title to the undivided one-half quieted in him. In the year 1867, Timothy and William Casey, with their wives, joined in making a mortgage on the land, and there is evidence from two sons of William Casey that Timothy admitted that William owned an interest therein. These declarations, it is said, were made in 1892 and later. There seems to have been nothing in the conversation, as it appears in the record, to have called them out. The facts just stated, together with the fact that the last deed in the chain of title stands in the name of the two brothers as grantees, makes the case for defendants. On the other hand, the undisputed testimony shows that Timothy Casey held exclusive possession from the time his brother moved, in 1865. During that time he paid the taxes, received the rents and profits, and made various improvements upon the land. Among other of such improvements, he built a dwelling house. At different times he claimed sole ownership. Evidence of this fact was objected to, because the declarations were not shown to have been made in the presence of William Casey. But we think such evidence was admissible to prove, not the title, but the intent of the party in possession. Youngs v. Cunningham, 57 Mich. 153 (23 N.W. 626); Lamoreaux v. Meyers, 68 Wis. 24 (31 N.W. 331). Furthermore, to sustain plaintiff's claim it is shown without dispute that during all the years of Timothy Casey's occupancy of the land the defendant William lived only three miles distant, and that he was aware of many, if not all, of the improvements made upon the premises. There is no pretense of his ever exercising any act of ownership after 1865, other than his joining in the mortgage mentioned. On the contrary, we find that in the year 1893 a son of William, with the latter's knowledge and assent, leased a part of the land from Timothy and farmed it that year. These are the facts. Applying to them well-recognized principles of law, and we find that Timothy and his brother, the defendant, were tenants in common. Exclusive occupancy by one tenant in common, accompanied by acts or declarations of sole ownership, if known to his co-tenant, will amount to an ouster. Flock v. Wyatt, 49 Iowa 466; Warfield v Lindell, 38 Mo. 561; Campau v. Dubois, 39 Mich 274; Cummings v. Wyman, 10 Mass. 464; Hubbard v. Wood, 1 Sneed 279. And where there is an ouster the possession of the occupying tenant may ripen into a title. Actual notice of the hostile acts and claim must be shown, but...
To continue reading
Request your trial