Holtzman v. Douglas
Decision Date | 29 November 1897 |
Docket Number | No. 80,80 |
Citation | 168 U.S. 278,18 S.Ct. 65,42 L.Ed. 466 |
Parties | HOLTZMAN v. DOUGLAS et al |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Arthur A. Birney, for plaintiff in error.
N. E. Davis, James S. Edwards, and Job Barnard, for defendants in error.
This is an action of ejectment, brought to recover the possession of a lot in the city of Washington, designated as 'Lot No. 8 in square No. 941.' The defendants set up adverse possession as defense. Upon the trial before a jury a verdict was rendered in favor of the defendants, upon which judgment was entered, and an appeal taken to the court of appeals of the District of Columbia, where the judgment was in all things affirmed (5 App. D. C. 397), and the plaintiff has brought the record here for review.
It appeared on the trial that the record title to the lot had been, at the time of his death, in one David A. Hall, who died December 24, 1870, and the heirs at law of Hall, by divers conveyances, conveyed this lot to the plaintiff in fee. The plaintiff proved also that the defendants, at the commencement of this action, were in possession of the premises through one Richard Rothwell, their tenant, and that they claimed to own the same as heirs at law of William Douglas, who died in September, 1865. The defendants, on their part, proved a deed of conveyance to William Douglas of the lot in question from the corporation of the city of Washington, the deed reciting a sale of the property for unpaid taxes assessed on the land in the name of David A. Hall, the deed being dated July 6, 1865, and recorded July 12, 1865, in the proper office. The deed was admitted in evidence to show color of title in the defendants.
The facts upon which the defense of adverse possession arises have been so well summarized in the opinion of the court of appeals, which was delivered by Mr. Justice Morris, that we take his statement thereof, as follows:
This action was commenced on the 31st of May, 1889, and, as stated in the brief of the counsel for the plaintiff, the vital question for the jury was, were the defendants in adverse possession prior to May 31, 1869? The evidence is uncontradicted that from a period as early as 1867 the defendants, through their tenant, Rothwell, were in possession of the premises, and such possession was continued up to the commencement of this action; but it is claimed that, because Rothwell had entered upon the land in 1865 without claiming to own the same, or to be entitled to possession, and had deposited the pontoons and marble mentioned in the foregoing statement of facts, he thereby became a tenant of the plaintiff's predecessors in title, and that he could not change the character of his possession, as being in subordination to them, by any agreement between himself and Mrs. Douglas, without giving notice to them that such an agreement had been made.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bolln v. The Colorado & Southern Railway Co.
... ... is unnecessary to give possession the element of openness and ... notoriety. (2 C. J. 77; Holtzman v. Douglas, 168 ... U.S. 278; Florida Southern R. Co. v. Loring, 51 F ... 932; Black v. Tennessee Coal Co., 93 Ala. 109, 9 So ... 527; ... ...
-
Kingman Reef Atoll Dev., L.L.C. v. United States
...taken in connection with their constantly asserted ownership" that supported quieting title in the defendant); Holtzman v. Douglas, 168 U.S. 278, 284 (1897) ("Payment of the taxes . . . is very important and strong evidence of a claim of title. . . ."). Payment of taxes alone, however, does......
-
Cox v. Richerson
... ... 918; ... Kelly v. Greene, 142. Minn. 82, 170 N.W. 922; ... Schofield v. Harrison Land and Mining Co., 187 S.W ... 61; Holtzman v. Douglass, 168 U.S. 278, 42 L.Ed ... 466; Houston Oil Co. v. Goodrich, 213 F. 136; ... Warner v. Wickizer, 146 Okla. 232, 294 P. 130; ... ...
-
Merrifield v. Buckner
...if the facts had been in dispute. Fletcher et al. v. Fuller et al., 120 U.S. 534, 7 S.Ct. 667, 30 L.Ed. 759; Holtzman v. Douglas et. al., 168 U.S. 278, 18 S.Ct. 65, 42 L.Ed. 466. But we do not understand that these cases hold the payment of taxes alone is proof of adverse possession, but th......