Johnson v. Erlandson

• Decision Date: 04 November 1905
• Citation: 105 N.W. 722,14 N.D. 518
• Parties: JOHNSON v. ERLANDSON.
• Court: North Dakota Supreme Court

14 N.D. 518

105 N.W. 722

JOHNSON

v.ERLANDSON.

Supreme Court of North Dakota.

Nov. 4, 1905.

Syllabus by the Court.

Where a person, by reason of actual notice of a given fact, is sought to be charged with notice of other facts which inquiry would disclose, there must appear in the nature of the case such a connection between the known fact and the fact with notice of which he is sought to be charged that the former may be said to furnish a reasonable and natural clue to the latter.

The fact that a purchaser from B., who claimed title under a recorded deed from E. valid on its face, knew that the deed from a previous owner to E. was missing and unrecorded, was not sufficient to charge such purchaser with constructive notice of the fact that B.'s deed had been wrongfully obtained by the latter.

Where the grantor in a deed deposited in escrow knew that the grantee named therein had wrongfully obtained possession thereof and had it recorded, and negligently permitted the grantee's apparent ownership to remain unchallenged for an unreasonable length of time, such grantor is estopped to deny the grantee's title as against an innocent purchaser from the latter.

Appeal from District Court, McLean County; W. H. Winchester, Judge.

Action by Ann Johnson against Nels V. Erlandson. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

J. T. McCulloch (John F. Philbrick, of counsel), for appellant. A. T. Patterson (Newton & Dullam, of counsel), for respondent.

ENGERUD, J.

The plaintiff brought this action to quiet title to 320 acres of land situated in McLean county. On and prior to April, 1892, the land was owned by one Emanuel Hogenson. On the date last named Hogenson and wife conveyed it to Nels V. Erlandson by a deed of warranty, which has never been placed of record. On May 17, 1892, Erlandson and wife executed a deed to one Milton P. Baker and left the same in the possession of one Anders E. Anderson, to be delivered in case Erlandson approved of certain California property which Baker proposed to give him in exchange for the land in question. The proposed trade was rejected by Erlandson. Notwithstanding the fact that the trade was not completed or the conditions warranting the delivery of the deed performed, Baker obtained possession of the deed and placed it of record on September 28, 1892. On September 15, 1894, Baker conveyed the land to the plaintiff, Ann Johnson, by warranty deed which was placed of record on February 25, 1895. The plaintiff redeemed the premises from tax sales for the years 1892 and 1893, and has paid the taxes ever since, and is now, and has been for several years, in possession of the land through tenants. Previous to the time plaintiff took actual possession the land was unoccupied. The trial court found that Baker was not entitled to a delivery of the deed, and that the deed was not delivered to him, and that the plaintiff acquired no title through her deed from Baker, and entered judgment canceling said deed of record, and quieting defendant's title. Plaintiff appeals, and demands a review of the entire case.

It appears that Erlandson left the deed of the property in question with Anderson, who occupied the same office with Baker in Chicago, and that Baker also left with Anderson a deed to Erlandson of the California property, both to be delivered by Anderson, if Erlandson was satisfied with the California property. It is not clear how the deed came into Baker's possession. Baker is dead. Anderson testifies that he did not give it to him; that it was on his desk and disappeared from it without his knowledge or consent. It is clear that there was no authorized delivery, and, as between the parties, it did not, therefore, pass title. It is clear that, as between Erlandson and Baker, there was no delivery of the deed, but we think the defendant is estopped, as against this plaintiff, to deny Baker's title or right to convey. The evidence shows beyond question that the plaintiff, in the utmost good faith, paid Baker full value for the land, and accepted a conveyance from him believing him to be the owner. The negotiations which resulted in the conveyance from Baker to plaintiff were conducted in behalf of plaintiff by one Edwards. Baker furnished Edwards with an abstract of title which disclosed that no deed had been recorded from Hogenson, the former owner, to Erlandson. In explanation of this apparent defect, Baker stated that Erlandson had a deed from Hoganson, but had lost it, and, to remedy the defect in the record title, he (Baker) had procured from Hogenson and wife an affidavit in which they both deposed that they had duly conveyed the land to Erlandson by a warranty deed dated on or about May 1, 1892, which deed they had both voluntarily executed and delivered to Erlandson. The affidavit had been recorded, and the original accompanied the abstract. Edwards deemed the affidavit sufficient evidence to account...