Mathews v. Baker

• Decision Date: 08 February 1916
• Docket Number: 2802
• Citation: 47 Utah 532,155 P. 427
• Court: Utah Supreme Court
• Parties: MATHEWS v. BAKER et al

155 P. 427

47 Utah 532

MATHEWS v. BAKER et al

No. 2802

Supreme Court of Utah

February 8, 1916

Appeal from District Court, Third District; Hon. T. D. Lewis, Judge.

Action by Abigal L. Mathews against James S. Baker and others to quiet title.

Judgment for plaintiff. Defendants appeal.

AFFIRMED.

Richards Hart & Van Dam and F. K. Nebeker for appellants.

W. R Hutchinson, for respondent.

FRICK J. STRAUP, C. J., and McCARTY, J., concur.

OPINION

FRICK, J.

On March 16, 1907, the plaintiff commenced this action in equity against the defendants, twenty-three in number, to quiet the title to a certain lot in Salt Lake City which was particularly described in her complaint. The plaintiff claimed title to the lot in question by adverse possession under our statute. The defendants filed answers to the complaint in which they claimed title to the lot as tenants in common of the plaintiff. A trial to the court resulted in findings of fact, conclusions of law, and judgment in favor of the plaintiff. Defendants appeal.

Upon the issue of adverse possession the court found as follows:

"That the plaintiff, Abigal L. Mathews, has been in the continuous, open, public, and adverse possession of the above-described real estate and has paid all the taxes and assessments levied against said property continuously since 1886 under claim of title; and that she has used and occupied said premises continuously since 1889 and made valuable improvements thereon of the approximate value of $ 12,000, consisting of a five-room cottage of the value of $ 3,000, one eight-room cottage of the value of $ 5,000, one seven-room house of the value of $ 3,000; and that she has expended the sum of $ 1,000 in leveling the surface of said ground; that she built walks, planted shrubbery, constructed outbuildings for the convenient use of the occupants of said premises; and that during said period of time when she made all of said improvements and expended said money and labor she was occupying, holding, and using said premises openly, continuously, publicly, and adversely against all persons whomsoever and against the claims of all the defendants herein named their heirs, assigns, and legal representatives. * * * The court further finds that the plaintiff's occupancy and possession of said premises was adverse and hostile and under claim of right to title, and not as a tenant in common with said defendants and their predecessors in interest. * * * The court further finds that the defendants had either personal or constructive knowledge at all times since plaintiff's possession of said real estate of her claim of ownership and title in and to said described premises, and that said claim and ownership on the part of plaintiff was not as a cotenants with the defendants or a tenant in common as heirs at law of said Simon Baker, but was a claim of ownership in her own right independent of the rights and claims of the defendants herein."

The appellants in their brief state the question presented for decision thus:

"The respondent claims title to the entire property by adverse possession, and appellants claim their respective, undivided shares in and to said lot as heirs at law of Simon Baker, deceased. The court found in favor of plaintiff, and the principal question raised by the assignment of errors is whether under all the circumstances of this case, adverse possession should be held to run in favor of one cotenant, the plaintiff, against the other cotenants, the defendants."

The facts found by the court that the plaintiff was in the exclusive possession of said property for the number of years stated in the findings, and that she made the improvements and paid the taxes thereon and used the premises as her own are not disputed, at least not seriously. The controversy arises, however, with regard to the legal effect that should be given to the possession and use of the premises and the improvements made thereon in view that the plaintiff and all of the defendants are the heirs of a common ancestor, one Simon Baker, deceased. In other words, the question to be determined is:...