Hayes v. Carroll
| Decision Date | 03 November 1898 |
| Docket Number | 11,215 - (42) |
| Citation | 76 N.W. 1017,74 Minn. 134 |
| Parties | TIMOTHY HAYES and Others v. MARGARET CARROLL and Others |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in the district court for Wright county to have plaintiffs declared the owners of certain land, and to correct a mistake as to grantees in the patent therefor issued by the federal government. Defendants demurred to the complaint on the ground that it failed to state a cause of action. From an order, Tarbox, J., overruling the demurrer, defendants appealed. Affirmed.
Public Land -- Proof by Widow of Homesteader -- Patent to Heirs of Homesteader -- Equitable Title.
A homesteader under the laws of the United States entered resided upon, cultivated and improved his claim for more than five years, but died without making his final proofs. His widow made them, and complied in all things with the provisions of R.S. (U.S.) § 2291. Her proofs were accepted as sufficient by the land officers, but by mistake the patent for the land was issued to his heirs instead of her. Held that, upon such compliance by her with the law, she became the equitable owner of the land, and that the patentees hold the legal title in trust for her, and that a court of equity will enforce the trust.
Laches not Imputed to Equitable Owner in Possession.
Laches will not be imputed to one in the peaceable possession of land under an equitable title, for delay in resorting to a court of equity for protection against the legal title.
W. H Cutting, for appellants.
The United States issued the patent to "the heirs of Michael O. D. Hayes, deceased," under date of October 20, 1873. Honora, his widow, died June 25, 1896. She accepted this patent, and during all her life, nearly 23 years thereafter, she acquiesced in the same, and never once questioned it. This is laches sufficient to have estopped her from questioning the patent, and those claiming under her are estopped. See Bernier v. Bernier, 147 U.S. 242. In the case at bar, the claim had been completed by Michael during his life, and having completed his claim he became invested with an absolute right to the patent. A patent issued to a person deceased at the time of its issuance inures to the benefit of his heirs. Zabriskie, U.S. Land Laws, 368, 372; Galloway v. Finley, 12 Pet. 264.
J. T. Alley and C. A. Pidgeon, for respondents.
Congress deemed it fit that in case the person making the entry died before the final proofs and other things required by R.S. (U.S.) § 2291, were complete, the land should go to the person or persons depending on the entryman for support. If the widow is living she gets it, if she performs. If there is no widow, then the heirs or devisee may comply with the law and get the land, but they get it under the law of congress, and not as a part of the estate of the deceased. Dawson v. Mayall, 45 Minn. 408; Coleman v. McCormick, 37 Minn. 179; Bernier v. Bernier, 72 Mich. 43; Webster v. Bowman, 25 F. 889; 19 Am. & Eng. Enc. 332, 333.
It is alleged in the complaint that Honora Hayes was in the absolute, exclusive, notorious, adverse and hostile possession of the premises in controversy from the date of the death of Michael up to the date of her own death in 1896. She claimed all of the time to own the land in fee, and, as long as her possession remained undisturbed, she could forfeit nothing by her laches. Neither is it too late for the correction by a court of equity of the mistake made in issuing the patent. 12 Am. & Eng. Enc. 606; Hutson v. Fumas, 31 Iowa 154; Michoud v. Girod, 4 How. 503, 561; Gaines v. Chew, 2 How. 619; Gresley v. Mousley, 4 De G. & J. 78; Baker v. Kelley, 11 Minn. 358 (480); 13 Am. & Eng. Enc. 674; Fawcett v. Fawcett, 85 Wis. 332; Pleasants v. Blodgett, 39 Neb. 741; Bausman v. Kelley, 38 Minn. 197; Lewis v. Welch, 47 Minn. 193.
The material allegations of the complaint herein are: On March 2, 1863, Michael O. D. Hayes duly filed and settled upon 80 acres of government land in Wright county, in accordance with the homestead laws of the United States, and continued to reside thereon to the time of his death in October, 1868. He complied during such time with all of the provisions of the homestead law as to residence thereon, and as to cultivation and improvement thereof, and during all such time his wife, Honora Hayes, lived with him on the land and assisted in the cultivation and improvement thereof. He would have been entitled, had he lived, to a patent therefor. He died intestate, leaving his widow, Honora Hayes, surviving him, but no children nor any descendant of any deceased child. After his death his widow continued to reside on the land, and on July 9, 1869, she made the final proofs under her deceased husband's entry in all respects as required by law, which were accepted by the officers of the land department as sufficient. Thereafter, and on October 20, 1873, a patent was issued under such homestead entry; but, by reason of the mistake of the officers who issued the patent, it was issued to and in the name of "the heirs of Michael O. D. Hayes, deceased," instead of Honora Hayes, his widow. She was at all times after the making of the final proofs to the time of her death, on June 25, 1896, in the actual, open, notorious and exclusive possession of the land, claiming to own the same in fee simple. During all this time she was ignorant, unable to read or write and partially insane; living alone on the land, and excluding herself from all intercourse with her neighbors. She had no knowledge as to the contents of the patent, or as to the legal effect thereof. She died intestate, leaving the plaintiffs her surviving, who are her only heirs at law. The defendants are the heirs and grantees of heirs of Michael O. D. Hayes. While it is not expressly alleged, the necessary inference from the allegations of the complaint is that the husband never made his final proofs. The prayer of the complaint was that the mistake in the patent be corrected, or that the defendants be adjudged to hold the legal title in trust for the plaintiffs, and for general relief. The defendants demurred to the complaint on the ground that it did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, and from an order overruling their demurrer they appealed.
The contention of defendants' counsel in support of the demurrer is that Hayes having entered upon the land and lived on it for more than five years, and having during that time performed all things required by law to be done by him, he was at the time of his death the owner of the land, and vested with an absolute right to the patent, and having died so seised in fee of the land, although final proof had not been made, the United States held the legal title in trust for him, and therefore the patent was legally issued to his heirs; that, the widow not having been a party to the contract of purchase, neither she nor those claiming under her can set up any mistake in issuing the patent; and further that, having accepted and acquiesced in the patent for 23 years, she would have been, had she lived and those claiming under her are, estopped on account of her laches from now...
To continue reading
Request your trial