Coykendall v. Briggs

• Decision Date: 02 January 1931
• Docket Number: No. 5847.,5847.
• Citation: 60 N.D. 267,234 N.W. 74
• Parties: COYKENDALL v. BRIGGS et al.
• Court: North Dakota Supreme Court

60 N.D. 267

234 N.W. 74

COYKENDALL

v.BRIGGS et al.

No. 5847.

Supreme Court of North Dakota.

Jan. 2, 1931.

Syllabus by the Court.

In an action properly triable to the court, the findings of fact made by the court are entitled to appreciable weight in this court upon the trial of the case de novo when the witnesses appear before the trial court, and the court observes their demeanor and hears them testify.

Syllabus by the Court.

Record examined, and, as the findings of the trial court are sustained by the weight of the evidence, the judgment is affirmed.

Appeal from District Court, Ramsey County; G. Grimson, Judge.

Action by Ella Coykendall against Pearl Briggs and others. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

H. W. Swenson, of Devils Lake, for appellant.

W. M. Anderson and F. T. Cuthbert, both of Devils Lake, for respondents.

BURR, J.

This is an action to determine adverse claims to 80 acres of land in Ramsey county, and apparently is suggested by the outcome of the case of Briggs v. Coykendall, reported in 57 N. D. 785, 224 N. W. 202, where many of the facts are set forth.

Both parties claim title from the same source. Originally the land belonged to one Fred Coykendall, father of Harry and of Pearl Briggs and brother of the plaintiff and of Frank Coykendall. Just before this controversy started, one Harry Coykendall owned the land in question. December 30, 1926, he deeded the land to Pearl Briggs, his sister; but, owing to her inability to raise money to pay the taxes, she did not record her deed until July 15, 1927. On the 5th of July, 1927, the same Harry Coykendall gave a deed to this land to his aunt, Ella Coykendall, the plaintiff, and the plaintiff's deed was recorded July 7, 1927.

As stated by the appellant, the sole issue is: “Did plaintiff before she secured her deed on July 5, 1927, have knowledge, either actual or constructive of defendant's deed or claim to title to the real estate involved in this lawsuit?”

The trial court found, as the facts in the case: That on October 24, 1925, “Pearl Briggs entered into a contract for the purchase of such premises from the said Harry Coykendall a brother” and paid part of the purchase price; “that such negotiations were largely held in the home of the plaintiff * * * that the plaintiff had actual knowledge of such purchase by the defendant * * * and that the plaintiff by reason of various conversations and business transactions, and subsequent to the date of purchase had further actual knowledge and notice of the purchase by the defendant Pearl Briggs, of such described premises;” that Pearl Briggs immediately took possession of the premises, leased them to one Joe Schwan and “has at all times been in open, notorious possession of said premises since her purchase thereof as aforestated in 1925.” The court found further that the plaintiff is an old lady, seventy-eight years of age, residing with her brother Frank Coykendall, and that this Frank Coykendall was the plaintiff's active agent in procuring a deed to these premises from Harry Coykendall, and that this “was done for the sole purpose of obtaining title in the said Ella Coykendall to be afterwards transferred” to him; that he “had actual knowledge of the outstanding deed of the defendant, Pearl Briggs”; and that this knowledge came to him before he got the deed from Harry Coykendall to his sister, the plaintiff; that all of the “negotiations leading up to the execution of the deed from Harry Coykendall to plaintiff were done at the dictation and behest of the said Frank Coykendall * * * and that the same was done with full knowledge that Pearl Briggs * * * had a contract, and subsequently obtained a deed to said premises prior to the obtaining of the deed to the said Ella Coykendall and that such deed was obtained with full knowledge of the outstanding deed to the defendant * * * and was done fraudulently, etc. * * *”

[1] The question involved is one of fact solely. The findings of the trial court are entitled to appreciable weight when the case is before this court on a trial de novo, especially when the witnesses appeared before him personally and he had the advantage of observing their demeanor. See Christianson v. Farmers' Warehouse Ass'n, 5 N. D. 438, 444, 67 N. W. 300, 32 L. R. A. 730;Doyle v. Doyle, 52 N. D. 380, 389, 202 N. W. 860;First...