Krug v. Davis

• Decision Date: 13 February 1885
• Docket Number: 12,129
• Citation: 101 Ind. 75
• Parties: Krug et al. v. Davis
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

101 Ind. 75

Krug et al. v. Davis

No. 12,129

Supreme Court of Indiana

February 13, 1885

Petition for a Rehearing Dverruled April 3, 1885.

From the Montgomery Circuit Court.

Judgment affirmed.

G. W Paul and J. E. Humphries, for appellants.

P. S Kennedy, S. C. Kennedy and E. C. Snyder, for appellee.

OPINION

Elliott, J.

The principal question in this case is set at rest by the cases of Paul v. Davis, 100 Ind. 422, Humphries v. Davis, 100 Ind. 274, Humphries v. Davis, 100 Ind. 369, Davis v. Krug, 95 Ind. 1, and Krug v. Davis, 87 Ind. 590

The special finding shows that the appellant John Krug entered into possession of the land in controversy under the title of his wife, Elizabeth Krug, and that the title asserted by her was acquired as the alleged heir of her natural daughter, Emily Davis, who became the adopted daughter of Isaac Davis and his wife, Jessie Davis. It is also stated in the finding that a judgment in partition was rendered in the suit of Elizabeth Krug against Isaac Davis, setting off to her the land in dispute, and that "said partition suit was appealed to the Supreme Court, and was in all things reversed before the said wheat crop was harvested." It is further stated that a receiver was appointed, and that the wheat sown by John Krug is now in the receiver's possession. The court stated as conclusions of law, that Elizabeth Krug did not inherit the land from her daughter, Emily Davis, and had no title to it; that the defendants were in the wrongful possession of the land, and that the appellee was entitled to the wheat in the hands of the receiver.

It is a familiar rule, that a party having the burden of the issue can not recover, unless all the facts essential to a recovery appear in the special finding. Pittsburgh, etc., R. R. Co. v. Spencer, 98 Ind. 186; Dodge v. Pope, 93 Ind. 480; Dixon v. Duke, 85 Ind. 434; Ayers v. Adams, 82 Ind. 109; Ex Parte Walls, 73 Ind. 95; Stropes v. Board, etc., 72 Ind. 42. This rule applies to the possessory right here asserted by John Krug.

The appellee's case was made out, when it appeared that he was the owner of the land, and that the appellant John Krug had entered into possession under Elizabeth Krug, who had no right or title to the land. If the person under whom he entered had no title or right to the land, she could convey none, and it devolved upon John Krug, when this fact appeared, to show some claim which warranted him in sowing the wheat which he now claims. There is nothing indicating that he possessed any such right. We must infer from the finding that he had full knowledge of all the facts, and if he did have this knowledge, he was chargeable with notice of the legal consequences resulting from them. Dodge v. Pope, supra. If he knew that his wife had no title, and no right to lease the land to him, then he was a mere naked trespasser. It is quite clear that no mere wrong-doer, who has neither right nor title, can successfully assert a right to crops. A trespasser can not, by his own wrongful act, create the relation of landlord and tenant, and it is this relation which confers the right to away-going crops. Wood Landlord and Tenant, p. 970.

If it had appeared that John Krug had...