Edwards v. Tenney
Citation | 154 P.2d 143,65 Idaho 784 |
Decision Date | 15 December 1944 |
Docket Number | 7217 |
Parties | A. W. EDWARDS, Respondent, v. REX TENNEY, H. C. TENNEY and JANE DOE TENNEY, husband and wife, Appellants |
Court | United States State Supreme Court of Idaho |
1. Trusts
Generally a trust is impressed upon land in favor of party who paid the purchase price though title was taken in name of another, but the inference of such trust may be rebutted.
2. Trusts
Purchasers who knew that vendor had paid for the land but caused deed to be made in his brother's name, with understanding that land was given to brother though vendor would occupy land for life and pay taxes, could not assert that brother held subject to resulting trust in favor of vendor.
3. Adverse possession
Where purchaser of land caused deed to be made to a brother, to whom he sent deed with explanation that it was a gift but purchaser would retain occupancy of property for life and pay taxes, court properly found that purchaser's occupancy and payment of taxes were pursuant to understanding with brother, and did not result in adverse possession in purchaser.
4. Appeal and error
Findings supported by substantial evidence are controlling on appeal, and findings will not be disturbed when supported by sufficient uncontradicted evidence.
5. Vendor and purchaser
Purchasers who took possession with knowledge that vendor had given the land to his brother, and in quiet title action by brother did not claim lien for improvements or purchase price paid, but objected to offer of evidence of amounts paid, were not entitled to such lien.
Appeal from the District Court of the Eighth Judicial District of the State of Idaho in and for Bonner County. Hon. Bert A Reed, Judge.
Affirmed.
Everett E. Hunt for appellants.
Where one pays the purchase price for real property, though title be taken in the name of another, a trust arises, impressed upon the land, in favor of such party paying the purchase price. (Rexburg Lumber Co. v. Purrington et al, 62 Ida. 469; Pittock v. Pittock, 15 Ida. 426, 98 P 719.)
One who enters and occupies land, claiming title against the world, possesses adversely, even though his possession is founded in mistake as to the validity of his deed. (Bayhouse v. Urquidies, 17 Ida. 286, 105 P.2d 1066; Sec. 5-206, I. C. A.)
Bandelin & Bandelin and W. F. McNaughton for respondent.
The testimony refutes a resulting trust had such a trust been pleaded. (Scott on Trusts, sec. 441 and 441.3.)
The testimony discloses no title by prescription, because possession and payment of taxes by William Edwards was subordinate to, not adverse to, legal title in A. W. Edwards. (Sec. 5-206, I. C. A.; Janke v. McMahon, 133 P. 21.)
Holden, C. J. Budge, Givens and Dunlap, JJ., concur. Ailshie, J., deeming himself disqualified, did not sit at the hearing or participate in the decision in this case.
July 9, 1917, William Edwards of Bonner County, Idaho, purchased the real property involved in this suit from the Humbird Lumber Company. At his request the deed conveying the property so purchased was made to a brother, A. W. Edwards, residing at Aroostock County, Maine. After execution and delivery to William Edwards, the deed was recorded in the office of the County Recorder of Bonner County. William Edwards, after the deed was recorded, immediately mailed it to his brother, A. W. Edwards. By his letter of transmittal, William Edwards, in substance, explained the deed was made as a gift, but that he, William, was to have the use and occupancy of the property so long as he lived, and would pay the taxes and, accordingly, William so occupied the property and paid the taxes levied thereon. Many years thereafter, to wit, September 25, 1940, by written agreement, William Edwards contracted to sell appellants the following described real and personal property (the real property being the identical property covered by the deed from the Humbird Lumber Company to A. W. Edwards):
Northwest Quarter (NW 1/4) of Section Twenty-one (21) Township Fifty-six (56) North, Range Two (2), W. B. M. lying and being North and West of the Northern Pacific Railway right-of-way, containing 63 acres, more or less; together with certain described livestock and farm equipment.
At the same time and as a part of the same transaction, William Edwards executed to appellants a warranty deed to the above described real property as well as a bill of sale to the above mentioned personal property and deposited the same with Hon. Everett E. Hunt as escrow holder. And while the written contract to sell the real and personal property fixed a consideration of $ 3,500.00, the deed recites a cash consideration of $ 10.00, "and other valuable considerations."
About three years after the execution of the above mentioned contract, bill of sale and deed, to wit, the 7th day of September, 1943, William Edwards died at Sandpoint, Idaho.
September 16, 1943, A. W. Edwards filed the following complaint in the District Court of the Eighth Judicial District of the State of Idaho in and for the County of Bonner, against Rex Tenney, H. C. Tenney and Jane Doe Tenney, husband and wife, and Joseph Chondick:
October 30, 1943, Rex Tenney, H. C. Tenney and Jane Doe Tenney answered, specifically denying the material allegations of the complaint and then and by what is called "an affirmative defense" (in legal effect a cross-complaint to quiet title), alleged as follows:
The main suit and cross-suit were tried to the court January 5, 1944. February 26, 1944, the court made and filed findings of fact and conclusions of law. The findings pertinent here are:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Shurrum v. Watts
...of Idaho v. D. W. Standrod & Co., 47 Idaho 93, 272 P. 700; Rexburg Lumber Co. v. Purrington, 62 Idaho 461, 113 P.2d 511; Edwards v. Tenney, 65 Idaho 784, 154 P.2d 143; Jaussaud v. Samuels, 58 Idaho 191, 71 P.2d 426. Generally an alleged beneficiary of a resulting trust is required to show b......
-
Cooper v. Carter Oil Co.
...2 This is so even though the agent pays the taxes in his own name if it is shown to be for the adverse claimant. 3 In Edwards v. Tenney, 65 Idaho 784, 154 P.2d 143, where the owner made arrangements for another to pay the taxes, such payment was said to inure to the benefit of the owner. Th......
-
Loosli v. Heseman
... ... every element of adverse possession, and the failure ... to prove any one of them is fatal. ( Edwards v ... Tenney , (Ida.), 154 P.2d 143; Simmons v ... Perkins , 63 Ida. 136, 145.) ... Where ... the owner of the land plows, plants, ... ...
-
Wagoner v. Jeffery
... ... in the case at bar, the findings of the trial court will not ... be disturbed. (Edwards v. Tenney, 65 Ida. 784, 154 ... P.2d 143.) ... Finally, ... the burden was upon appellants to prove abandonment and ... forfeiture of ... ...