Coe v. Sloan

• Citation: 16 Idaho 49,100 P. 354
• Parties: JOHN B. COE et al., Appellants, v. THEODORE A. SLOAN et al., Respondents
• Decision Date: 20 February 1909
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Idaho

100 P. 354

16 Idaho 49

JOHN B. COE et al., Appellants, v. THEODORE A. SLOAN et al., Respondents

Supreme Court of Idaho

February 20, 1909

COMMUNITY PROPERTY-DESCENT OF-HEIRS-TITLE TO REAL ESTATE-COLOR OF TITLE-STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS-OPERATION OF-OUSTER-ADVERSE POSSESSION.

1. Where C. dies intestate, owning community property, and leaves a widow and two minor sons, if such intestate leaves no debts, under the law of 1875 (8th Ter. Sess. Laws, p 636), an undivided one-half interest descends to the widow and the other one-half interest to the minor children.

2. Such widow could not legally convey the entire title to such property, but a deed from her purporting to convey the entire title would give the grantee color of title under which he might obtain title by adverse possession.

3. Held, under the facts of this case that the respondents acquired title to the town lots involved in this action by adverse possession.

4. Held, that the right of plaintiff to any part or interest in said lots is barred by the statute of limitations.

5. Held, that the stipulated facts are not sufficient to establish constructive fraud.

6. Where there is no fraud shown, neither the ignorance of a person of his rights to bring an action nor the mere silence of a person liable to the action prevents the running of the statute of limitations.

(Syllabus by the court.)

APPEAL from the District Court of the Third Judicial District for Ada County. Hon. Fremont Wood, Judge.

Action to recover an interest in certain town lots in Boise City. Judgment for defendants. Affirmed.

Judgment affirmed, with costs in favor of respondent.

Hawley Puckett & Hawley, for Appellants.

The facts as agreed upon show that the defendants and their grantors and predecessors in interest were guilty of fraud, which is termed and designated in eqnity "constructive fraud." In all such cases of purchase with notice courts of equity will hold the purchaser a trustee for the benefit of the person whose rights he has thus sought to defraud or defeat. (Seymour v. Seymour, 51 N.Y.S. 130, 28 A.D. 495, 1 Story's Eq. Jur. 395.)

It is the duty of purchasers to examine the records; they are therefore conclusively affected with notice of all the record which is legally made, and which it is their duty to examine. (1 Perry on Trusts, 5th ed., p. 323; Smith v. Burgess, 133 Mass. 511; Maul v. Rider, 59 Pa. 167.) There is no definite or specific time fixed by equity within which a constructive trust will be barred by laches. It must depend upon the circumstances of each particular case. (1 Perry on Trusts, 5th ed., p. 338; Provost v. Gratz, 6 Wheat. 481, 5 L.Ed. 311; Morse v. Hill, 136 Mass. 60.) If the fraud is unknown to the injured party, or is concealed or he is under disability, or out of the country, or the delay is caused by the defendant, no lapse of time will be laches which bar relief. (1 Perry on Trusts, 5th ed., p. 340; Ferris v. Henderson, 12 Pa. 49, 51 Am. Dec. 580; Henry Co. v. Winnebago etc. Drain Co., 52 Ill. 299.) Trusts arising from fraud, actual or constructive, are constructive trusts. (Brison v. Brison, 75 Cal. 527, 7 Am. St. 189, 17 P. 689.) Notwithstanding the honesty of the intention, if the result deprived the plaintiff and his intestate of the property, it amounts to constructive fraud, and the statute of limitations cannot be interposed, for the reason that this suit was commenced within three years after the discovery of the facts constituting the fraud. (Lampman v. Lampman, 118 Ia. 140, 91 N.W. 1042; Ward v. Armstrong, 84 Ill. 151; Ames v. Howes, 13 Idaho 756, 93 P. 35.)

Chas. F. Koelsch, for Respondents.

"A trust cannot exist in relation of a void title to land." (Mandeville v. Solomon, 33 Cal. 38.) The widow's deed, though purporting to convey the whole title, had the effect only of conveying her undivided one-half interest and to give color of title to the grantee to the whole of said property. (1 Ency. of Law, 852,) Even an express trust is repudiated by adverse possession, and the statute runs from the time of such repudiation. (Nasholds v. McDonell, 6 Idaho 377, 55 P. 894.)

"Fraud which will prevent possession of property from being foundation of prescription must be positive or actual fraud and not constructive or legal fraud." (Salter v. Salter, 80 Ga. 178, 12 Am. St. 249, 4 S.E. 391; 19 Ency. of Law, 248.) "Neither the ignorance of a person of his right to bring an action nor the mere silence of a person liable to the action prevents the running of the statute of limitations." (State v. Walters, 31 Ind.App. 77, 99 Am. St. 244, 66 N.E. 182; Ames v. Howes, 13 Idaho 756, 93 P. 35.)

The recording of a deed, in relation to which fraud is claimed, is such discovery thereof and affords such means for its discovery that the statute will begin to run from the time of such recording. (Rogers v. Richards, 67 Kan. 706, 74 P. 255; Fuller v. McMahon (Iowa), 94 N.W. 205; McDonald v. Bayard Sav. Bank, 123 Ia. 413, 98 N.W. 1025; Irwin v. Holbrook, 32 Wash. 349, 73 P. 360; 19 Ency. of Law, 242.)

Respondents have acquired title by ouster of their contenants and adverse possession. (Greenhill v. Biggs, 85 Ky. 155, 7 Am. St. 579, 2 S.W. 774; Oglesby v. Hollister, 76 Cal. 136, 9 Am. St. 177, 18 P. 146; Unger v. Mooney, 63 Cal. 586, 49 Am. Rep. 100; Winterburn v. Chambers, 91 Cal. 170, 27 P. 658; Alvarado v. Nordholdt, 95 Cal. 116, 30 P. 211; Bath v. Valdez, 70 Cal. 350, 11 P. 724; Feliz v. Feliz, 105 Cal. 1, 38 P. 521; Price v. Hall, 140 Ind. 314, 49 Am. St. 196, 39 N.E. 941; King v. Carmichael, 136 Ind. 20, 43 Am. St. 303, 35 N.E. 509.) "The undisturbed possession raises the presumption of notice and constitutes a complete bar when the period has elapsed." (Frick v. Sinon, 75 Cal. 337, 7 Am. St. 177, 17 P. 439; Rutter v. Small, 68 Md. 133, 6 Am. St. 434, 11 A. 698.)

Independently of the statute of limitations, it was laches if the plaintiff delayed the bringing of his action for more than five years after attaining the age of majority, since all the conveyances were matters of record and constructively within his knowledge. Under such circumstances courts of equity will apply the bar irrespective of the statute. (Ryan v. Woodin, 9 Idaho 525, 75 P. 261; Dominiguez v. Dominiguez, 7 Cal. 424.)

SULLIVAN, C. J. Stewart and Ailshie, JJ., concur.

OPINION

SULLIVAN, C. J.

John B. Coe brought this action on his own behalf and as administrator of the estate of George H. Coe, Jr., and they are appellants here. The action was brought against Theodore A. Sloan, F. L. Williams and M. Ethlene Rounds, as defendants.

This action was commenced on August 24, 1907, to recover an undivided one-half interest in lots 10, 11 and 12 in block 39 of the original townsite of Boise City, Ada county. The following, among other facts, are stipulated by the respective parties as the facts of the case:

That on and after and for some time prior to December 17, 1875 George H. Coe and N. T. Coe were husband and wife, and were the owners of and in the possession of said three town lots, together with lots 7, 8 and 9 of the same block; that title to said lots stood on the records of said county in the name of George H. Coe, but that said lots were acquired during the continuance of the marriage and were community property; that on said 17th day of December, said George B. Coe died intestate, leaving surviving him, his widow, N. T. Coe, and two sons, John B. Coe, one of the plaintiffs herein, and George H. Coe, Jr., the deceased brother of the plaintiff herein, who also died intestate; that the plaintiff was, at the date of the death of his father, five years of age, and the said George H. Coe, Jr., was at that time six years of age; that said George H. Coe, Jr., died on or about August 19, 1906, and that this plaintiff was by the superior court of Butte county, state of California, duly appointed administrator of the estate of his said deceased brother, and ever since has been and now is the duly appointed, qualified and acting administrator of said estate; that after the death of said George H. Coe, his widow, N. T. Coe, remained in the possession of said lots until June 27, 1876; that during said time the said lots were unimproved, uninclosed, wild land, covered only with sagebrush and other weeds and vegetation; that on or about June 27, 1876, for and in consideration of the payment by one Jeannette J. Isaacs of the sum of $ 225, which was then a full and fair market value of said lots, to the said surviving widow, said widow executed and delivered to said Isaacs, by bargain and sale, deed purporting to convey to said Isaacs the title in fee simple to said lots, from 7 to 12, inclusive, which deed was on July 6, 1876, duly acknowledged by the said N. T. Coe and on October 21, 1876, was placed on record in the recorder's office of said county; that said sale and conveyance was not made under and in pursuance of any order of the probate court of said county, or of any other court, and was not made for the purpose of satisfying any community debts of said deceased and his said wife; that said community owed no debts at the time of the death of said George H. Coe and no administration was ever had on his said estate; that under and in pursuance of said deed, the said Isaacs, in 1876, took possession of said premises under claim of ownership of the fee title to said premises, basing her claim upon said deed, and remained in the continuous possession of the said lots 10, 11 and 12 under such claim of title until June 21, 1893, and in the continuous possession of said lots 7, 8 and 9 until October 19, 1876, on which latter date she sold and by warranty deed conveyed to one James H. Bush said lots 7, 8 and 9; that during the time said Isaacs was in possession of said lots, she inclosed...