Goodman v. Nichols
Decision Date | 10 May 1890 |
Citation | 23 P. 957,44 Kan. 22 |
Parties | JULIA M. GOODMAN v. WILLOUGHBY NICHOLS |
Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Error from Jefferson District Court.
ACTION in the nature of ejectment, brought by Julia M. Goodman against Willoughby Nichols, to recover the northwest quarter of section 27, township 7, range 18, in the county of Jefferson, and also to recover for the rents and profits thereof and the damages for the withholding of the possession of the same from the 1st day of March, 1875, until the commencement of this action. The defendant answered, and admitted that he had been in the possession of the land as alleged, but denied every other averment contained in the petition. For a further answer, the defendant alleged the history of the title to the land, and stated that it was purchased from the United States by Martha M. Cody on August 7, 1857, and that on the same day she borrowed the sum of $ 200 from Jonathan C. Bowles with which to purchase the land and executed to him a promissory note for that sum, drawing interest at the rate of 25 per cent. per annum, and also a mortgage upon the land purchased to secure the payment of the note. The mortgage was filed for record and duly recorded on August 11, 1857. Subsequently Bowles duly sold and transferred the note and mortgage to Marcus D. L. Simpson and thereafter Simpson brought an action in the district court to recover judgment upon the note and to foreclose the mortgage, and on April 28, 1862, judgment was rendered in favor of Simpson and against Martha M. Cody for $ 434.28 debt, and $ 27.82, costs. On June 5, 1862, a special execution was issued for the sale of the mortgaged premises in pursuance of which the land was duly sold to Willoughby Nichols, the defendant, for the sum of $ 281. The money was paid, and at the October term, 1862, the sale was confirmed and on November 16, 1862, the sheriff executed to the defendant a deed for the premises. Upon the delivery of the deed, the defendant took possession of the land, until that time vacant and unimproved, and in the full belief of rightful ownership by virtue of the judicial sale. It is also alleged that the proceedings were prosecuted by Simpson against Martha M. Cody as mortgagor in good faith as a non-resident, and without any knowledge of her decease, if it was in fact true. It is then stated that the land having been subject to taxation and having been sold, the defendant as owner thereof redeemed the same by the payment of $ 60, and has been in the actual possession of the land as owner since April 29, 1863, without any notice of adverse claim until the commencement of this action, and that he had paid taxes assessed thereon to the amount of $ 600, and placed lasting and valuable improvements thereon of more than $ 2,000. It is alleged that if Martha M. Cody was in fact deceased, as asserted by the plaintiff at the commencement of the foreclosure action, no administration upon her estate had ever been had, and that the heirs at law of said Martha M. Cody have resided in the state continuously and in the neighborhood of said land during all such time, and the records of the court and of the tax proceedings have been open to their inspection, and they have in fact known thereof as well as that the defendant was in the possession and claimed the ownership of the land; but they made no objection thereto in any way, prior to the commencement of this action. Defendant further alleged that if the deed should prove invalid by reason of the prior decease of Martha M. Cody, he was entitled to protection at the hands of the court for the full amount and value of the note, with interest thereon, and also the sum paid for the redemption of such land from tax sale, with interest thereon, before the plaintiff should be permitted to disturb him in his possession. The defendant further alleged that by reason of the facts plaintiff should be estopped from setting up any claim to the land, and further, that the defendant is the equitable assignee of Simpson of the note and mortgage and all interest of Simpson and Bowles therein, with the right to enforce the same against the land if it should be held that the plaintiff has the interest of said Martha M. Cody therein. But the defendant denied the claims of the plaintiff, and averred that he has been lawfully in the possession of the land as the holder and owner thereof under the judicial proceedings stated, and is entitled to have his title quieted as against the claim of the plaintiff. The defendant also pleaded that the action of the plaintiff is barred by the statutes of limitation. The defendant first prayed for general judgment against the plaintiff for costs; and further, that if it should be found that plaintiff held by purchase or otherwise the right of Martha M. Cody based upon the fact of her decease before the mortgage was foreclosed, that the amount of the lien thereon by virtue of the note and mortgage should be determined, together with the costs of redemption of the land from tax sale and the subsequent taxes paid thereon, and also the value of the improvements thereon, and that the court require the plaintiff to redeem the land from these claims within a fixed time or order the land sold for the satisfaction of these liens; and that upon failure of the plaintiff to comply with the decree that she and her heirs and assigns should be barred from all interest or claim upon said land.
The plaintiff admitted the allegations of the answer with respect to the mortgage and judicial sale, but alleged that they were wholly null and void by reason of the fact that Martha M. Cody was not alive when such proceedings were had, averring that she died on or about November 1, 1858.
At the May term, 1887, the case was tried by the court, a jury being waived, and after the testimony was submitted the court made and stated the following conclusions of fact and law:
CONCLUSIONS OF FACT.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Mehard v. Little
...43 F. 854 (affirmed in 145 U.S. 56, 12 S. Ct. 772, 36 Wheat. [U.S.] 541, 36 L. Ed. 621); Walker v. Cronkite, 40 F. 133; Goodman v. Nichols, 44 Kan. 22, 23 P. 957; Cheesebrough v. Parker, 25 Kan. 566; Stewart et al. v. Rea et al., 74 Kan. 868, 87 P. 1150; Mowry v. Howard, 65 Kan. 862, 70 P. ......
-
Jewett s v. Black
...333; Smith v. Bryce, 17 S. Car. 539; Adickes v. Lowry, 12 S. Car. 108; Allen v. Logan, 96 Mo. 598; Jones v. Moore, 42 Mo. 419; Goodman v. Nichols, 44 Kan. 22; Steele v. Boley, 7 Utah, 64; Downer Smith, 24 Cal. 124; Blum v. Robertson, 24 Cal. 129; Smith v. Smith, 80 Cal. 329; Dewey v. Hoag, ......
-
Riedesel v. Towne
... ... McMann, et al., 123 Okla. 26, 252 P. 1093, 1095, this ... court quoted with approval from Goodman v. Nichols, ... 44 Kan. 22, 23 P. 957, 960, as follows: 'An adverse ... possession of real estate for the statutory period, held in ... good faith ... ...
-
Guinn v. Spillman
...involving facts somewhat similar to those in the present case this court sustained the finding of adverse possession. ( Goodman v. Nichols, 44 Kan. 22, 23 P. 957.) Curtis v. Campbell, 54 Mich. 340, 20 N.W. 69, it was held that "An owner of out-lots which he does not fence or cultivate may e......