Hall v. Sauntry
| Decision Date | 02 June 1898 |
| Docket Number | 11,152 - (118) |
| Citation | 75 N.W. 720,72 Minn. 420 |
| Parties | EDWIN H. HALL and Another v. WILLIAM SAUNTRY and Others |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Appeal by plaintiffs from an order of the district court for Itasca county, Holland, J., denying motions to amend the findings for a new trial, and for judgment in favor of plaintiffs. Reversed.
Judgment -- Collateral Attack.
In an action where the court has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject-matter, a judgment therein rendered cannot be impeached collaterally.
Judgment against Record Owner Valid against Grantee of his Unrecorded Deed -- Berryhill v. Smith, 59 Minn. 285 Followed.
Berryhill v. Smith, 59 Minn. 285, followed, to the effect that, under G.S. 1894, § 4180, "every such conveyance [of real estate] not so recorded shall be void * * * as against * * * any judgment lawfully obtained, at the suit of any party, against the person in whose name the title to such land appears of record, prior to the recording of such conveyance," applies to a judgment affecting the title to real property, where such title appears of record in the name of the person against whom the judgment is returned.
Refusal to Make Findings -- Error.
The trial court refused to make findings as to material issues. Held error.
Keyes & Baldwin, for appellants.
A. T. Ankeny and Clapp & Macartney, for respondents.
Hall and Brown brought this action for the purpose of determining the adverse claims of the defendants to a quarter section of land situate in Itasca county. William Sauntry and wife, Frederick Weyerhaeuser and wife, and E. Rutledge and wife answered, alleging title in F. Weyerhaeuser and William Sauntry. The trial court found the following facts:
(1) "That one Pierre Paul entered the land described in the complaint at the United States land office in Duluth, Minn., on the 6th day of October, A.D. 1873, to whom a patent was issued therefor, dated May 15, 1874, and duly recorded on the 30th day of October, 1883, in Book G of Deeds, on page 9; that the title acquired by said Pierre Paul under said entry and patent was duly conveyed to and vested in one James R. Park by warranty deed, dated October 25, 1873, and duly recorded on the 15th day of November, 1873, in Book C of Deeds, on page 159; that thereafter the title so acquired by said James R. Park was duly conveyed to and vested in the Cloquet Lumber Company by and through a warranty deed, dated May 25, 1889, and duly recorded on the 18th day of June, 1889, in Book D of Deeds, on page 212; and that the title so acquired by said Cloquet Lumber Company was duly conveyed to and vested in the said defendant E. Rutledge by and through a warranty deed, dated August 23, 1893, and duly recorded on the 1st day of December, 1896, in Book O of Deeds, on page 339; and that the undivided two-thirds of the title so acquired by said defendant E. Rutledge was thereafter duly conveyed to and vested in the said defendants William Sauntry and F. Weyerhaeuser."
(2) "That the Pierre Paul who entered said land, and to whom the patent issued therefor, died in Hennepin county, Minn., in the year 1887, and was, at the time of his death, about 87 years old; and that said Pierre Paul, at the time of his death, and for 25 years prior thereto, was a resident of Hennepin county."
(3) "That the plaintiffs claim title to the land in question under a quitclaim deed from another Pierre Paul; that the Pierre Paul under whom they claim title never resided in Hennepin county, never entered the land in question, nor authorized anyone to enter it for him, and was always an entire stranger to such title; that the last-named Pierre Paul is about 66 years old, and that he never personally received any consideration from plaintiffs for the conveyance to them of such land."
And, as a conclusion of law, the court found that the defendants were the owners in fee simple of the land described in the complaint, and that plaintiffs have not, and never had, any right, title, or interest in said land, or any part thereof; and it was ordered that judgment be entered accordingly. Plaintiffs appeal and assign a large number of errors, only part of which need be considered.
The alleged errors numbered 1 to 6, inclusive, are made upon the ground that the trial court refused to make any finding as to
(1) "Whether a person by the name of Pierre Paul commenced an action in the district court in and for Itasca county, Minnesota, against the Cloquet Lumber Company, in which action said Pierre Paul claimed to be the owner of the land in the complaint herein described and prayed to have the title to said land adjudged to be in him, said Pierre Paul, and to have the rights of said Cloquet Lumber Company adjudged and determined."
(2) "Whether judgment was rendered in said action of Pierre Paul against said Cloquet Lumber Company adjudging said Pierre Paul to be the owner of said lands."
(3) "Whether a certified copy of said judgment was recorded in the office of the register of deeds of said Itasca county, Minnesota, and at what time said certified copy was so recorded."
(4) "Whether, at the time of the commencement of said action of Pierre Paul against said Cloquet Lumber Company, the deed from the said Cloquet Lumber Company to E. Rutledge was recorded."
(5) "Whether, at the time said judgment was rendered in said action of Pierre Paul against said Cloquet Lumber Company, said deed from said Cloquet Lumber Company to E. Rutledge was recorded."
(6) "Whether, at the time a certified copy of said judgment rendered in said action of Pierre Paul against said Cloquet Lumber Company was recorded, the deed from said Cloquet Lumber Company to E. Rutledge was recorded in said county."
Upon all these points or questions there was ample evidence to require a finding of the trial court, which finding was necessarily material to the rights of the plaintiffs, but the court refused to make any finding upon any of said points or questions. We have quoted the entire finding of facts by the trial court.
The undisputed testimony shows that one Pierre Paul, Jr., commenced an action in the district court of Itasca county against the Cloquet Lumber Company. The summons and complaint therein are, respectively, dated January 28 1895 (the time of service of the summons not appearing), and the answer is dated July 10, 1895. In the complaint Pierre Paul alleges that he is the owner in fee of the premises herein in dispute; that the lands are vacant and unoccupied; that defendants have, or claim to have, some interest in said land adverse to the claims of plaintiff; and...
To continue reading
Request your trial