Holcomb v. Independent School District of Duluth
| Decision Date | 01 February 1897 |
| Docket Number | 10,249--(255) |
| Citation | 69 N.W. 1067,67 Minn. 321 |
| Parties | HANNAH A. HOLCOMB v. INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT OF DULUTH |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Appeal by plaintiff from an order of the district court for St Louis county, Morris, J., denying a motion for a new trial. Affirmed.
Order affirmed.
White & McKeon, for appellant.
In condemnation proceedings a judgment can bind a person only when he is a party to the proceedings. When an interested party is omitted the proceeding is nugatory as to him. State v. Easton & A. Ry. Co. 36 N. J. Law, 181; Columbus & W. Ry. Co. v. Witherow, 82 Ala. 190, 3 So. 23; Smith v. Chicago, A. & St. L. R. Co., 67 Ill. 191; Lane v. Miller, 17 Ind. 58; Garmoe v Sturgeon, 65 Iowa 147, 21 N.W. 493; Detroit, M. & T R. Co. v. Detroit, 49 Mich. 47, 12 N.W. 904; Hagar v. Brainerd, 44 Vt. 294; Moore v. Mayor, 8 N.Y 110. But see Lewis, Em. Dom. § 323. Estoppel in pais can be invoked only when a party has been guilty of no fraud. Titus v. Morse, 40 Me. 348.
Walter Ayers, for respondent.
It is competent for the legislature to authorize land to be condemned by a municipal corporation and devest any inchoate right of dower. 2 Dillon, Mun. Corp, § 594; Moore v. Mayor, 8 N.Y. 110; Simar v. Canaday, 53 N.Y. 298; Wheeler v. Kirtland, 27 N.J.Eq. 534; Randolph, Em. Dom. § 302; Morrison v. Rice, 35 Minn. 436, 29 N.W. 168. The language of the statute under which the condemnation was made is the same or similar to the acts construed in New York and New Jersey.
The statute of limitations has run against the claim of plaintiff. G. S. 1894, § 5134; Seymour v. Carli, 31 Minn. 81, 16 N.W. 495.
The widow takes as heir of her husband. Scott v. Wells, 55 Minn. 274, 56 N.W. 828; In re Swenson's Estate, 55 Minn. 300, 56 N.W. 1115; G. S. 1894, § 4469. When title against the husband is obtained by adverse possession for fifteen years, the widow is bound by the adverse title secured against her husband.
This is an action for partition of a lot in the city of Duluth, of which the plaintiff claimed to be the owner of one undivided third, and conceded that the defendant was the owner of the other two-thirds. The trial court found that the defendant owned the whole lot, and ordered judgment accordingly. The plaintiff appealed from an order denying her motion for a new trial.
The errors assigned, stated concisely, are that the trial court erred in its rulings on the admission of evidence, that it erred in its findings of fact, and that its conclusion of law is not justified by the facts found. The alleged errors will be considered inversely.
1. The material facts, as found by the trial court, are: The plaintiff is the widow of Martin T. Holcomb, who died April 25, 1882, at Duluth, where he had resided for eight to ten years next before his death. The plaintiff never resided with or visited her husband at Duluth, but during the time stated she lived in the state of Michigan. Holcomb, during his residence at Duluth, was reputed to be an unmarried man, and so represented himself. He was the owner of the lot in question, and on April 4, 1877, conveyed it to Michael Pastoret by warranty deed, which was duly recorded, and in which he described himself as an unmarried man. The defendant, July 29, 1881, condemned the lot for a schoolhouse site; but in its proceedings for that purpose Pastoret only was made a party, as he was the only person claiming the lot, or appearing of record to have any title thereto. The damages for the entire lot were assessed at $ 200, its then full value. The defendant paid this total amount to Pastoret September 21, 1881, and immediately went into possession of the lot, and proceeded to erect a schoolhouse upon the lot and others adjoining it. Only a part of the building was on the lot in question. The defendant has ever since been in the possession of the lot.
Shortly after her husband's death, and in the year 1882, the plaintiff came to Duluth and remained six months, during which time she had an administrator appointed on her husband's estate, and caused an investigation to be made as to the property which her husband had left, and the condition thereof. For this purpose she employed the administrator and an attorney at law, and was informed at this time, by each of them, after such investigation, that her husband had at one time owned the lot in question, and had conveyed the same, describing himself in the deed as an unmarried man. She also learned, during this visit to Duluth, that her husband had there held himself out to be a single man, and was so reputed to be, and that as such he had conveyed real estate belonging to him in the counties of St. Louis and Carlton; but she asserted no claim to such real estate, or gave notice of the fact that her husband had not been a single man, as claimed by him, and returned to Michigan in the year 1882, where she has since continuously resided. The value of the lot at this time was not to exceed $ 200, but it is now of the value of $ 2,250. The reason why the plaintiff gave no notice of her claim to the lot as the widow of Holcomb was that she deemed it of too little value to warrant proceedings for the establishment of her claim.
The defendant, in the year 1890, caused the schoolhouse first erected on the lot to be torn down, as inadequate, and erected upon this lot and adjoining ones a high school building at a cost of $ 350,000. The value of so much of this building as rests upon the lot in question is $ 18,000. The building cannot be divided. The defendant paid Pastoret for the lot, and took possession thereof, and has ever since held it, and erected the two schoolhouses thereon in good faith, in reliance on the representation of Holcomb, in his deed, that he was an unmarried man, and never had any notice that he was not then unmarried, or of the plaintiff's claim to the lot, until shortly before the commencement of this action, in November, 1895. The foregoing are substantially the facts as found by the court.
The plaintiff, however, while conceding that she never asserted any claim to the lot until 1895, denies that she ever knew prior to 1895, that her husband had made any conveyance of the lot. She also disclaims in this action any right to the improvements on the lot, and asserts no claim for actual partition of the premises, but claims that she is entitled to be paid one-third of the present value of the lot, excluding improvements. The form of the action, or the present claims or concessions of the plaintiff, can have but little, if any, bearing upon the question of the title to this lot, -- a question which must be determined upon the facts found by the trial court, without reference to the form of the action. Assuming the facts found to be sustained by the evidence, the conclusion follows that the plaintiff, in 1882, advisedly abandoned her interest in the lot, and is equitably estopped by her conduct from now asserting title to the lot to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial