McInerney v. Beck

• Decision Date: 08 January 1895
• Citation: 39 P. 130,10 Wash. 515
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: MCINERNEY v. BECK ET AL.[1]

39 P. 130

10 Wash. 515

MCINERNEY v. BECK ET AL.^[1]

Supreme Court of Washington

January 8, 1895

Appeal from superior court, Whatcom county; John R. Winn, Judge.

Action by Elizabeth McInerney against Jacob Beck and Mary Beck. From a verdict for defendant, and judgment thereon, plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

Bruce, Brown & Cleveland, for appellant.

J. J Weisenberger and J. R. Crites, for respondents.

DUNBAR C.J.

This was an action in ejectment, brought by the appellant Elizabeth McInerney, against the respondents, Jacob Beck and Mary Beck, claiming that the appellant is the owner of and entitled to a certain lot or parcel of ground situated in the city of Whatcom. Her claim is based on the fact that her husband purchased this property and received a deed to it during their coverture; that her husband is dead, and that she is the only heir; that he left no issue,-that is, at the time he died he had no children living, and also at the time of his death he had no parents living; and in the amended complaint alleges that there are no debts due from the deceased or his estate, and asks for the possession of the property. The answer of the defendants is a denial that Mrs McInerney is the owner of the land, or that she is the only heir of John McInerney; and sets up title in the name of Mary Beck, claiming that the said Mary Beck has been in open, adverse, and notorious possession of said property she and her grantors, for more than 20 years prior to the commencement of the action. The answer admits that John McInerney was the owner at one time of this property; that he held the same under a deed; but claims that any right or interest that he might have had in this property has been barred by the statute of limitations. Outside of the adverse possession, defendants claim through a tax deed to one Abner Dunn, from the administrator of the estate of Dunn to one Pierson, from Pierson to Whatcom county, and from Whatcom county to the respondents. On these issues the case went to trial, and the jury found that the appellant at no time had been, and was not, entitled to the possession of the land in dispute. Judgment was rendered in accordance with the verdict, and the case was brought here on appeal.

We do not comprehend how this verdict could have been reached under the testimony in this case. The plaintiff proved a straight title from the United States to Russell V. Peabody, from Russell V. Peabody to John E. Peabody, and a power of attorney from John E. Peabody to Russell V. Peabody, a deed from John E. Peabody to A. M. Poe, and a deed from A. M. Poe to John McInerney. Some objection was made by the respondents to the introduction of the deed from Poe because it was a quitclaim deed. This objection is not at all tenable. A quitclaim deed is as good as any other deed if the grantor had the title to convey, and, if he did not have the title to convey, as between other claimants, the warranty would not amount to anything. There is no question but that proof was absolutely convincing that the appellant was the wife of McInerney, and that McInerney was dead, and that there were no other heirs of McInerney living. Nor do we see anything inconsistent in the statements made by Mrs. McInerney in the proof of her title. It is true that it is only the testimony of one witness, but it is straightforward consistent, and absolutely undisputed, and a jury would have no right to disregard it. The only questions left, then, for the determination of the jury were two, the first of which is whether the tax deed under which respondents claim was sufficient to convey title. We think that, under the ruling of this court in Hurd v. Brisner, 3 Wash. 1, 28 P. 371, the deed was absolutely void. But, in addition to this objection, there was no grantee to this deed. The deed ran to "Abner Dunn...