McMaken v. Niles

• Decision Date: 06 October 1894
• Citation: 91 Iowa 628,60 N.W. 199
• Parties: MCMAKEN ET AL. v. NILES ET AL.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

91 Iowa 628

60 N.W. 199

MCMAKEN ET AL.

v.NILES ET AL.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Oct. 6, 1894.

Appeal from district court, Harrison county; A. Van Wagenen, Judge.

Action in equity to quiet the title to real estate. There was a hearing on the merits, and a decree in favor of the plaintiffs, from which the defendants appeal. Affirmed.L. R. Bolter & Sons, for appellants.

Roadifer & Arthur and S. I. King, for appellees.

ROBINSON, J.

This action involves the title to a 40-acre tract of land situated in Harrison county. One William Bishop became the owner of the land in September, 1870. The plaintiffs claim that about the year 1873 Bishop sold and conveyed the land to one Andrew Davis. In the year 1875, Davis executed to C. S. McMaken a warranty deed for the land, which was duly recorded in November of that year. In the year 1888, C. S. McMaken died intestate. In September, 1889, Bishop executed to Mrs. Sarah E. Hubbard a warranty deed for the land. In April, 1890, she gave to George W. Coffman a warranty deed for the land, and eight days later Coffman gave to her a quitclaim deed for it. In July of the same year she gave to the defendant Charles Hurst a mortgage thereon, and in the month following she gave to the defendant Niles a warranty deed therefor. He paid the mortgage debt, which amounted to about $160, redeemed the land from tax sale, and paid some taxes thereon, and in April, 1891, he executed a warranty deed therefor to the defendant George Tufley. The plaintiffs are the administrator of the estate of C. S. McMaken, his widow and heirs, and claim that the land in question belongs to that estate. The defendants deny the alleged conveyance by Bishop to Davis, and insist that if it was made they had no knowledge of it, but acquired title to the land in good faith as innocent purchasers for value. The district court found and decreed the plaintiffs to be the absolute and unqualified owners of the land, and taxed the costs to defendants.

1. No conveyance of the land of Bishop to Davis was ever recorded, and none was offered in evidence. But both Bishop and Davis testify that the land was sold, and a deed therefor given by the former to the latter in or about the year 1873. Some objection is made in argument to the sufficiency of this testimony to prove a transfer of ownership, and it is urged that it is not shown that the alleged deed was ever acknowledged. The testimony in question was received without objection, and shows with sufficient clearness that the land was in fact sold and conveyed to Davis, as claimed by the plaintiffs. Whether the instrument of conveyance was formally acknowledged by the maker is not material as to the parties to the instrument and persons having notice of it.

2. The evidence in regard to knowledge on the part of the defendants of the deed from Bishop to Davis is not so conclusive. It appears, however, that C. S. McMaken employed Stern & Milliman, of Harrison county, to act as his agents, and they redeemed the land from tax sale for the delinquent taxes of the years 1873 to 1876, inclusive. About the year 1882, John Coffman held a tax-sale...