Lambert v. Stees
| Decision Date | 24 August 1891 |
| Citation | 47 Minn. 141 |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
| Parties | TALLMADGE A. LAMBERT <I>vs.</I> JOHN A. STEES and others, Executors. |
Eller & How and Davis, Kellogg & Severance, for appellants.
Davenport & Thian, C. D. & T. D. O'Brien, I. V. D. Heard, and J. D. O'Brien, for respondent.
Ejectment to recover lot No. 6, and the southwest quarter of the southeast quarter of section 21, and the west half of the northeast quarter of section 28, in township 29 north, of range 22 west, brought by plaintiff as the heir-at-law of David Lambert. The history of the legal title is as follows: October 17, 1849, David Lambert located the land with a United States military land-warrant, and January 10, 1851, the patent to him issued. Early in November, 1849, David Lambert died intestate, leaving plaintiff his only heir. To defeat the legal title thus devolving on plaintiff, the defendants set up — First, that David Lambert located the land (though in his own name) as the agent and trustee of, and with a land-warrant belonging to, Andrew Bell Patterson, from whom defendants derive title, — in other words, they allege a resulting trust in favor of Patterson; second, that such resulting trust, and the facts on which it was based, were established and adjudged by the probate court of Ramsey county, in which county the land lay, in a proceeding had in the matter of the administration of the estate of David Lambert, about February 1, 1850; third, the statute of limitations or adverse possession for more than 20 years. The court below, after a trial without a jury, found the facts against the defendants, and directed judgment for the plaintiff. The appeal is from an order denying a new trial.
On the trial the defendants introduced in evidence deeds purporting to convey the property from the administratrix of David Lambert to Andrew Bell Patterson; from the latter to Henry A. Lambert; from him to Allen Pierce; from him to Frederick A. W. Davis; and from him to the defendants' testate, Washington M. Stees. The court below finds that the last grantee went into actual, exclusive, and open possession in August or September, 1867, claiming to be the owner, and continued so in possession till the action was commenced, on May 24, 1887, and that until said Stees went into possession the land was vacant and unoccupied. The adverse possession thus found was a few months short of the 20 years requisite to bar plaintiff's action.
Error is assigned upon the finding as to the possession prior to August or September, 1867, as contrary to the evidence. The evidence of acts of possession prior to that date was that, in 1864, the agent of Davis, the then owner, and Stees, made an arrangement by which the latter was to take charge of the land, and for his services in so doing was to have the cutting of the hay on the meadow part, and pursuant to that he cut each year till 1867, when Davis conveyed to him, from seven to twelve tons of hay, let his cattle roam over and pasture upon the land, which was wholly uninclosed, just as they roamed over and pastured upon adjacent uninclosed lands, and prevented people from cutting and stealing the wood on the land whenever they attempted it, though how frequently that occurred does not appear. This evidence did not require a finding by the court of possession, actual, open, distinct, notorious, exclusive, and continuous, such as is requisite to constitute adverse possession. A finding to the contrary, upon evidence of similar acts, such as annually cutting hay, was sustained in Bazille v. Murray, 40 Minn. 48, (41 N. W. Rep. 238.) The...
To continue reading
Request your trial