Haslam v. Haslam

• Decision Date: 01 March 1899
• Citation: 56 P. 243,19 Utah 1
• Court: Utah Supreme Court
• Parties: JOSEPH H. HASLAM, APPELLANT, v. JAMES N. HASLAM, RESPONDENT

56 P. 243

19 Utah 1

JOSEPH H. HASLAM, APPELLANT, v. JAMES N. HASLAM, RESPONDENT

Supreme Court of Utah

March 1, 1899

Appeal from the Third Judicial District Court, Salt Lake county Hon. Ogden Hiles, Judge.

Action to quiet title and for damages for certain trespasses alleged.

From a judgment for defendant plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

N. J Sheckell, Esq., and E. A. Wilson, Esq., for appellant. T. D Lewis, Esq., for respondent.

BASKIN, J. BARTCH, C. J., and McCARTY, J., concur.

OPINION

BASKIN, J.

This is an action to quiet title and recover damages for certain alleged trespasses. The material allegations of the complaint, are as follows, to wit: That the plaintiff is the owner and in possession of the following real estate: Beginning at a point five rods north of the southeast corner of lot 7, block 74, plat "C," Salt Lake City survey, thence west twenty rods, thence north two and one-half rods, thence east eleven rods, thence north five feet, thence east nine rods, thence south forty-six and one-fourth feet to place of beginning; that plaintiff became such owner by warranty deed from Margaret Howarth Haslam, dated May 22, 1896; that the defendant on April, 1897, committed certain trespasses thereon (which are fully set out in the complaint) to the damage of plaintiff; that the defendant claims an interest or title in said real property adverse to plaintiff. The prayer of the complaint is that the defendant be required to state fully and particularly what interest he claims in said premises, when, from whom, and how acquired, and that judgment for $ 100 damages be awarded. There is also a prayer for an injunction and general relief.

The answer of the defendant, after denying the trespasses and damage charged in the complaint, by way of cross-complaint in accordance with the prayer of the complaint, sets forth with particularity the adverse interest which he claims to have in said premises, as follows: "By way of cross-complaint, defendant alleges that on the 1st of July, 1891, Margaret Howarth Haslam, the mother of plaintiff and defendant, was seized and possessed of the following described property, which is included within the boundaries of the premises described in plaintiff's complaint, to-wit: Commencing seven and one-half rods north of the southeast corner of lot 7, block 74, plat "C," Salt Lake City survey, thence north five feet, thence west nine rods, thence south five feet, thence east nine rods to place of beginning; that on or about the 1st of July, 1891, the defendant entered into a contract with the said Margaret Howarth Haslam, whereby she agreed to sell the land above described to defendant, and to execute a good and sufficient warranty deed for the same, and the defendant agreed to pay her the sum of two hundred (200) dollars for said land and other land immediately adjoining the same on the north, payment to be made at such a time as she might demand. That under and by virtue of such agreement, and with the consent of the said Margaret Howarth Haslam, the defendant entered into the possession of said land, and made valuable improvements thereon, and on the land immediately adjoining the same on the north, aggregating in value the sum of one thousand (1,000) dollars, and ever since the 1st day of July, 1891, the defendant has been and now is in the actual possession of said land with the improvements, and that the above described land is necessary and useful in the enjoyment of the land of the defendant immediately adjoining said land on the north, and great injury and injustice will be done this defendant if he is not given title to the same. That ever since the 1st day of July, 1891, defendant has been ready and willing to pay the said Margaret Howarth Haslam the price agreed to be paid for said land, and on or about the 30th of March, 1897, he paid the said sum of two hundred (200) dollars in full payment of said land; and thereupon she executed and delivered to the plaintiff a warranty deed purporting to convey the land particularly described in paragraph 1, of the cross-complaint, together with the land on the west and north of said land which was included within the land to be sold to defendant in their contract on the 1st of July, 1891, as above set forth; and that at the time of the execution and delivery by said Margaret Howarth Haslam of the deed described in the first paragraph of plaintiff's complaint, to wit, on the 22d day of May, 1896, purporting to convey to said plaintiff the premises described in this cross-complaint, and ever since the 1st of July, 1891, the plaintiff well knew that the defendant was in possession of said premises herein particularly described, and had actual notice of the agreement above set forth, whereby Margaret Howarth Haslam had agreed to sell in fee to the defendant the property in the cross-complaint described. That at various times since the 22d of May, 1896, plaintiff has prevented the defendant from the free use of the premises described, and threatens to permanently deprive the defendant of the possession of the same, whereby defendant has been damaged in the sum of one hundred (100) dollars."

The prayer of the answer demands judgment that the plaintiff execute to the defendant a sufficient deed of the property so owned and claimed by him, for $ 100 damages, and such other relief as the court may deem just.

The plaintiff demurred to the answer and cross-complaint on various grounds, and the demurrer was overruled. The only ground of the demurrer presented in plaintiff's brief is that no denial of plaintiff's allegations, that he is the owner of the premises described in the complaint, and that he became such by deed from Margaret Howarth Haslam, dated May, 1896, was made, and therefore the defendant's answer was wholly insufficient to constitute a defense.

The answer denied the alleged trespasses and damages, and raised issues between the parties on these questions. The demurrer could not, therefore, have been, properly, sustained under the general objection that the answer did not constitute a defense. If the answer had contained nothing but the denials before mentioned, the defendant would not have been entitled to introduce evidence on the question of title, and the evidence should have been confined to the issues formed by the denials of the answer. The answer, however, by way of cross-complaint, in accordance with the prayer of the complaint, sets out in minute detail, a title in defendant, to the premises in dispute, which if established by proof would defeat the plaintiff's right to the relief prayed for in the complaint, or to any relief whatever, and put the alleged title and right of possession of plaintiff in issue as effectually as any specific denials could have done.

The complaint alleges that the defendant claims an interest or title in said premises adverse to plaintiff, and prays that defendant may be required to specifically state his said claim. This the defendant has done in his answer by way of cross-complaint.

We are of the opinion, that under the ruling of this court, in the case of the Irrigation Co. v. Little, 14 Utah 42 46, 46 P. 268, the matter alleged by way of cross-complaint is properly a part of the answer, and therefore the answer herein not only states facts sufficient to constitute a defense, but to entitle the defendant to the affirmative relief...