Hall v. Hall
| Decision Date | 11 February 1888 |
| Parties | HALL v. HALL et al. |
| Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
To entitle an evicted claimant of land to compensation for permanent improvements put upon the land by him while he was in possession, it must appear either that he was bona fide purchaser and holder at the time he made the improvements, or that the improvements were made by him under such circumstances that it would be a fraud upon his rights to permit the owner to take them without compensation.
Such evicted claimant, who is not a bona fide purchaser cannot recover compensation for his improvements, unless he shows that the owner has been guilty of fraud or gross laches in not notifying such claimant to desist when he knew that the improvements were being made by the claimant under a mistaken belief that his title was good.
If the owner had no knowledge of the fact before or at the time the improvements were made, he cannot be charged with them although he is cognizant of the fact after they have been completed, and fails to notify the claimant of his title.
Where such claimant, while in possession of the property, pays off certain costs of suits purporting to be liens on the property, he will not be entitled to charge the owner with such costs, when it appears either in a direct or collateral suit or proceeding that the court which decreed said costs to be paid had no jurisdiction to render such decree against either the owner or the property.
Where the finding of a commissioner upon a matter properly before him is based on the mere opinions of the witnesses, who differ greatly in their estimates, and the finding of the commissioner is sustained by the decree of the circuit court this court will not disturb such finding, unless it is plainly irreconcilable with any reasonable view of the evidence.
Appeal from circuit court, Ritchie county; THOMAS I. STEALEY, Judge.
Suit in chancery by Cyrus Hall against Alexander Lowther, Moses S Hall, and others, to setaside a certain decree in favor of Alexander Lowther against the complainant, and to set aside a sale made under such decree to the defendant Moses S. Hall. A decree of the circuit court refusing to set aside such sale was reversed by the supreme court, and the cause remanded for further proceedings. Pursuant to the mandate of the supreme court, the cause was referred to a commissioner to report on the value of the permanent improvements placed on the land by the defendant Hall, also "whether or not the said plaintiff, Cyrus Hall, was cognizant of the fact at the time or times said respective improvements or any or either of them were being placed on said land, and whether or not he made any protest, or questioned the title to said land and premises at said time or times, or either of them," as well as the rental value of the land and premises and the amount of taxes paid thereon. Various reports were made by the commissioner, and confirmed by the court. The plaintiff appeals.
Cyrus Hall and J. F. Brown, for appellant.
R. S. Blair, for appellees.
On November 17, 1883, this court, upon an appeal from a decree of the circuit court of Ritchie county, reversed the decree of the circuit court, and remanded the cause to that court "for further proceedings therein to be had according to the prin ciples announced in the opinion" then delivered by this court. Hall v. Lowther, 22 W.Va. 570. It appears in the record, as well as the opinion delivered on the former appeal, that the house and lot which are the foundation of the present appeal were sold under a decree entered in the suit of Alexander Lowther v. Cyrus Hall and others. The sale was made March 18, 1864, and confirmed March 23, 1864. At said sale, J. M. Stephenson became the purchaser at the price of $256, but he assigned his purchase to Moses S. Hall, to whom the property was conveyed by the commissioner. The said Moses S. Hall, in his answer to the bill in this cause, avers that Stephenson sold the property to him at the price of $600, of which sum $344 was paid to the wife of the plaintiff, Cyrus Hall, by direction of Stephenson, and that upon the written order of the latter, the commissioner, by deed dated March 23, 1864, conveyed said property to him, and he at once took possession of it; that he had placed valuable improvements thereon, and has been in possession ever since; that the plaintiff, Cyrus Hall, returned to Ritchie county in December, 1865; that he stood by and saw respondent expending large sums in the improvement of said property, without intimating or asserting any claim thereto until sometime in the year 1871, when the improvements were about completed. 22 W.Va. 573. The exact language of this defendant's answer is: "And respondent, believing his title to be good, proceeded to and has at great expense to himself repaired, enlarged, and improved and beautified the said lot in various ways, and has thereby rendered it very valuable, so that it is now worth probably $2,500; and that during all the time from December, 1865, while respondent was making his said improvements, said complainant was cognizant of the same, and well knew that respondent was expending large sums of money upon permanent improvements upon the property, but failed to warn respondent or even to claim that he, complainant, had any shadow of right or title to said property, until sometime in the year 1871, when respondent had completed most of his improvements, and had rendered the property very valuable, and was offering the property for sale, complainant, for the first time, suggested that there were irregularities in the proceedings, and that respondent's title was defective." This Court on the former appeal reversed the decrees directing and confirming the sale of said property, and set aside the conveyance to the defendant Moses S. Hall; and in the opinion, referring to the aforesaid averments in the answer of the defendant Moses S. Hall, the court said: "But if it shall hereafter appear, as is suggested by his answer filed to the plaintiff's bill, that said Moses S. Hall placed valuable permanent improvements upon said property, and that the appellant was cognizant of the fact at the time they were being placed thereon, and made no protest and did not then question the title of said Moses S. Hall to said property, he shall be entitled to compensation for such improvements in the manner and to the extent provided for by chapter 91 of the Code of this state, and in the same manner he shall be charged with the rents and profits of said property." 22 W.Va. 579. The circuit court, after entering the mandate of this court, by an order made February 26, 1884, referred the cause to a commissioner to report -- First, the permanent improvements placed upon said house and lot by the defendant Moses S. Hall since the 23d day of March, 1864, the several dates of making the same, and the value thereof at the time made and their present value; second, whether or not the plaintiff, Cyrus Hall, was cognizant of the fact at the time or times the said improvements or any of them were being made, and whether or not he made any protest or questioned the title of the defendant to said property, third, the rental value of said property, excluding the improvements, during the time the defendant held possession of the same; and, fourth, what taxes the defendant has paid on the property, and what taxes if any were paid by the plaintiff for the same years. Many witnesses were examined before the commissioner, whose depositions are filed in the cause, and the commissioner reported that the original cost of all the permanent improvements made by the defendant, amounted to $2,762.70, and that their present value was $2,211, but that this included improvements of the value of $575 which had been made since this suit had been brought; that "the evidence does not show that the plaintiff, Cyrus Hall, was cognizant of the fact at any specific time or times that any of said respective permanent improvements were being made, but it does show, by his own evidence, that he saw said improvements had been made." It shows further that the title was questioned by the plaintiff in 1871, that the annual rental value of the property was $36, and the aggregate rent and interest upon that basis amounted to $841.49 as of September 3, 1884, the date of the report; and that the amount of taxes paid on the property by the defendant, principal and interest, was $549.70. The commissioner with his report filed itemized statements and calculations in detail from which he deduced the above results. This report was excepted to by the plaintiff upon various grounds, which need not be here stated. By an order made October 25, 1884, the court sustained the exceptions, and referred the cause to another commissioner with directions to report upon the matters required by the former decree. This commissioner took a great mass of additional depositions. The results of his report are as to their amounts and findings of facts substantially the same as those of the former report, except as to the rental value, which he fixed at $60, instead of $36, making the aggregate as of June 1, 1886, $2,225.42. To this report the plaintiff also filed numerous exceptions. And the defendant Moses S. Hall likewise excepted, because the commissioner failed to report and allow in his favor the $256 paid by him for the purchase of the property, and the interest on the same. The court, by its decree of July 14, 1886, without passing upon the plaintiff's exceptions, recommitted the report to the commissioner with directions to him to state and make an additional report in regard to the $256 referred to in the defendant's exception, and whether or not said sum...
To continue reading
Request your trial