Harrison v. Everett, 17884

Decision Date11 March 1957
Docket NumberNo. 17884,17884
PartiesRobert F. HARRISON and Flora V. Harrison, Plaintiffs in Error, v. George G. EVERETT, Russell D. Glenn, Donald G. Morgan, Christine Morgan, Everett Lowry and Eileen Lowry, Defendants in Error.
CourtColorado Supreme Court

S. Arthur Henry, John N. Adams, Victor Quinn, Denver, Allen W. Broadstreet, Salida, for plaintiffs in error.

Boyle & Witty Salida, for defendants in error, Everett Lowry and Eileen Lowry.

FRANTZ, Justice.

The Harrisons (plaintiffs in error) seek a reversal of that part of the decree entered by the trial court in this cause in which it was held that the Lowrys (defendants in error) had established their counterclaim alleging title in them by adverse possession for more than eighteen years to a portion of the property sought to be quieted by the Harrisons.

Harrisons' Exhibit A and Lowrys' Exhibit 1, both received in evidence, are plats of the property described in Harrisons' complaint and of adjoining property. There are material differences in these two exhibits, and without determining which is the correct diagram (a matter not necessary to this decision, as will hereinafter appear), we will use Exhibit A, since it will serve to better illustrate the controversy.

NOTE: OPINION CONTAINS TABLE OR OTHER DATA THAT IS NOT VIEWABLE

It is the position of the Harrisons that the 4.1 acres lying south and west of the river and shown by the triangle is the property claimed by the Lowrys.

The Lowrys contend that they own by reason of adverse possession that property south and west of and adjoining the river as it extends in a southwesterly direction to the fence, represented by a broken line upon which is superimposed a number of small x's.

The Harrisons' ownership of all the property in the northwest quarter of the northeast quarter of Section 26 which lies south and west of the river depends upon three deeds:

1. A Treasurer's Deed dated, acknowledged and recorded on March 15, 1938, conveying the following described premises to Chaffee County: Part Northwest quarter of the Northeast quarter (NW 1/4 NE 1/4) All south and west of the Arkansas River except ten rods off East end, in Section 26, Township 50 N., Range 8 E. New Mexico Principal Meridian.

2. A Quit-Claim Deed from Chaffee County to Solomon Grodal dated, acknowledged and recorded on the 29th day of January 1945 and conveying the following property: All that part of the Northwest Quarter (NW 1/4) of the Northeast Quarter (NE 1/4) of Section number twenty six (26) in Township Fifty North, Range Eight (8) East of the New Mexico Principal Meridian, lying South and West of the Arkansas River,--excepting ten (10) rods off of the East end of said real property.

3. A Quit-Claim Deed from Solomon Grodal to the Harrisons dated and acknowledged on February 3, 1953 and recorded on February 5, 1953, conveying the following described property: All that part of NW 1/4 NE 1/4, section 26, Township 50 North Range 8 East N.M.P.M., lying South and West of Arkansas River, excepting Ten (10) rods off the East end of said real property, heretofore conveyed to school district No. 5.

The Lowrys rely upon the following circumstances to show their adverse possession of the property southwest of the river in said section extending to the fence line: that they own property in Section 23, and that the same is one piece with the disputed property because it is unfenced between them; that they grazed cattle on said disputed property; that until two years before the filing of the suit the fence in said portion of Section 26 was sufficient to turn cattle, and that these circumstances were true in connection with their predecessors in possessing and using said property. Such possession extended over a period of approximately fifty years. They further contend that they used the area immediately adjacent to the river for a route to other property owned by them south of the area in question. Some reliance is placed upon an offer made by Mr. Harrison of $250 for the disputed property as an admission, although the offer appears to have been made not in recognition of the right of the Lowrys in the premises, but as a means of keeping out of court and settling the dispute.

The testimony of Mr. Harrison was to the effect that he grazed his cattle on the land in dispute; that there was no fence sufficient to restrain his cattle from this area; and that he paid the taxes on the property. He produced a receipt for taxes for the year 1953, payable in 1954, covering 'P. T. NW 1/4 NE 1/4, All S & W of Ark, River B. 273, p. 175, 26-50-8.'

In the second defense to the counterclaim of the Lowrys, asserting adverse possession, the Harrisons alleged the sale of all the property south and west of the Arkansas River for delinquent taxes for the year 1930, the issuance of a tax sale certificate, and the delivery on March 15, 1938 of a treasurer's deed. No attack was made by the Lowrys contesting the validity of the tax sale or the tax deed.

In our view of the case, adverse possession is of no importance if the several deeds convey all the property in the northwest quarter of the northeast quarter south and west of the river.

Is there a difference in the land conveyed by a description conveying that part of a section all south and west of the Arkansas River and a description conveying all of the same section south and west of said river? We think not. If the description in a deed identifies, or furnishes the means of identifying, the property conveyed, it performs its function. Wheeler Perry Co. v. Mortgage Bond Co., 41 Ariz. 247, 17 P.2d 331. A description is sufficient when from it the property can be identified. Derham v. Hill, 57 Colo. 345, 142 P. 181. As we see it, the descriptions in the several instruments substantially identify the same property. So minor are the differences in description...

To continue reading

Request your trial
33 cases
  • Lippert v. Jung
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • October 12, 2001
    ...finding that adverse possession continued to run and survived a tax sale, the Supreme Court of Colorado, in Harrison v. Everett, 135 Colo. 55, 60-61, 308 P.2d 216, 219 (1957), stated in relevant "The issuance of a valid treasurer's deed created a virgin title erasing all former interests in......
  • Battle N., LLC v. Sensible Hous. Co.
    • United States
    • Colorado Court of Appeals
    • June 18, 2015
    ...(1905) (quoted with approval in Lake Canal Reservoir Co. v. Beethe, 227 P.3d 882, 891 (Colo.2010) ); see also Harrison v. Everett, 135 Colo. 55, 60, 308 P.2d 216, 219 (1957) ("If the description in a deed identifies, or furnishes the means of identifying, the property conveyed, it performs ......
  • Marshall v. Burke, 2010–812.
    • United States
    • New Hampshire Supreme Court
    • October 12, 2011
    ...noted that in adopting the majority in rem view of the effect of a tax sale, Burke cited approvingly the decision in Harrison v. Everett, 135 Colo. 55, 308 P.2d 216 (1957), a case in which the Colorado Supreme Court held that a tax deed extinguished even a ripened claim of title by adverse ......
  • Burke v. Pierro
    • United States
    • New Hampshire Supreme Court
    • December 16, 2009
    ...possession prior to the creation of a tax title lends not the least support to the title claimed thereafter." Harrison v. Everett, 135 Colo. 55, 308 P.2d 216, 219 (1957) (quotation omitted).The issuance of a valid treasurer's deed created a virgin title erasing all former interests in the l......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT