Craven v. Clary

• Decision Date: 01 January 1899
• Docket Number: 344
• Parties: G. W. AND S. M. CRAVEN v. SNEATHEN CLARY AND NANCY A. CLARY
• Court: Kansas Court of Appeals

55 P. 679

8 Kan.App. 295

G. W. AND S. M. CRAVEN v. SNEATHEN CLARY AND NANCY A. CLARY

No. 344

Court of Appeals of Kansas, Northern Department

January 1, 1899

Opinion Filed January 4, 1899.

Error from Pottawatomie district court; WILLIAM THOMSON, judge. Reversed.

Judgment reversed and new trial directed.

Jno. E Hessin, for plaintiffs in error.

D. V Sprague, for defendants in error.

OPINION

WELLS J.:

The facts in this case, as they are shown by the pleadings and stipulations on which it was submitted to the court below without other evidence, are substantially as follows: On August 20, 1875, the defendants in error, who were the defendants in the court below, conveyed by a general warranty deed to the plaintiffs in error, who were the plaintiffs in the court below, for the consideration of $ 525, eighty acres of land in Pottawatomie county. The purchasers went into immediate possession of said land and have had the use of it ever since. On January 13, 1890, in an action then pending in the district court of said county, a judgment was rendered dispossessing said purchasers in favor of a paramount title held by other parties. These defendants furnished attorneys to defend said suit and paid the costs thereof. Afterward, on January 11, 1894, a stipulation was entered into between the holder of such paramount title and these plaintiffs, under which it was agreed that the plaintiffs should have credit for $ 1236.50, the amount paid by the defendants for the title under which they claimed, and interest, and the further sum of $ 568.75 for betterments, and they should be charged for fourteen years' rent at $ 140 per year, amounting to the sum of $ 1960, and that the balance due the holder of the paramount title, and the rent of the land not included in the foregoing sums, should offset the taxes paid by the plaintiffs and defendants herein. So that by said stipulation the holder of the paramount title took the land free from any liens thereon, the rents offsetting and balancing the claims of these plaintiffs for betterments, taxes paid, and $ 1236.50, the sum paid, with interest, by these defendants for the sheriff's deed under which the parties in this case claimed title. Afterward, on December 1, 1893, the plaintiffs herein purchased the outstanding paramount title for the sum of $ 950, and thus became the full owners of the land and remained in possession thereof.

This action was brought in the court below on February 24, 1894, to recover on the covenants of warranty in the deed first herein referred to, asking judgment for the consideration of said deed, $ 525, with interest at seven per cent. per annum from the date of the deed. An answer and reply were filed, and the case was submitted to the court on the pleadings and a stipulation containing some of the facts hereinbefore stated. The court found for the defendants and the matter is brought here for review.

There is no question of fact in the case. The only question is, Do the pleadings and stipulation authorize the judgment? It is claimed by the defendants in error that the plaintiffs had the use of the land for fourteen years which they stipulated was worth $ 1960, and two years more, the value of which does not appear, and as an offset to said rent they received a credit of $ 1236.50 for money paid by these defendants and interest, and also of $ 568.75, the value of the...