Maple v. Stevenson
| Decision Date | 27 February 1890 |
| Docket Number | 14,051 |
| Parties | Maple v. Stevenson |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
From the Decatur Circuit Court.
Judgment reversed, at costs of appellee.
J. S Scobey, for appellant.
J. K Ewing and C. Ewing, Jr., for appellee.
Olds J. Berkshire, J., took no park in this decision.
This is an action by the appellant against the appellee to recover the possession of a small parcel of real estate. At the request of the plaintiff the court found the facts and stated its conclusions of law.
The conclusions of law and judgment were in favor of the defendant, as to all of the land.
All of the real estate described in the complaint, except the following described parcel, to wit: commencing two poles and nine links south, and north 76 [degrees] west twenty poles and six links from the half-mile post, east side of section 14, town. 10, range 10, in said county, for a beginning; thence south nine poles and five links; thence north 76 [degrees] west six poles and four links; thence north nine poles and five links; thence south 76 [degrees] east six poles and four links, to the place of beginning, the findings show was occupied by the defendant and the grantors through whom he derives title adversely to the plaintiff for more than twenty years before the commencement of this suit.
As to the remaining portion, which is hereinbefore described, the findings show the same to have been occupied by the defendant and his grantors of the other parcels of the land, through whom he claims title in connection with the other portion of the real estate which they claimed and held the title to; that the plaintiff is the legal owner of the tract which is hereinbefore described, and the defendant and the persons who occupied the same prior to him occupied it with the permission of the owner for more than twenty years prior to the commencement of this suit without any color of title, and without any claim of title; the land was not sold, or conveyed, or attempted to be conveyed, from one to the other, but each successive owner of the other tract occupied this, the owner permitting the occupancy, that is, making no objection; no rent was paid, and the occupants did not dispute the title of the owner, or make any claim of title themselves. The defence is made to the plaintiff's recovery on the ground that the plaintiff's right to recover the land is barred by the statute of limitations; that having failed to bring his action for twenty years he can not now maintain it, and the case of Vanduyn v. Hepner, 45 Ind. 589, is cited in support of this theory. The facts found would seem to bring the case within the broad doctrine stated in the case of Vanduyn v. Hepner, supra. But the facts in that case differ somewhat from the facts found in this case; and some statements are made in the decision in that case which may bear a broader construction than was intended.
We think it can not be held that when one person occupies the land of another, without color or claim of title, and admitting the title of the true owner, for twenty years, the right of the owner to recover his land is barred by the statute of limitations. There is no occasion for bringing any action for the possession, unless the owner desires to occupy the land himself. If the owner does not desire to make any use of the land himself, and some person is occupying the land admitting his ownership, and such occupancy is unobjectionable to the owner, it can not be contended, with any degree of plausibility, or sustained by any authority, that such occupant derives any title to the land; hence, the theory contended for leaves the owner in the position of owning the land after the expiration of twenty years, and yet can not recover possession of it. In order to...
To continue reading
Request your trial