Mineral County v. Hyde
| Decision Date | 14 March 1941 |
| Docket Number | 8132. |
| Citation | 111 P.2d 284,111 Mont. 535 |
| Parties | MINERAL COUNTY v. HYDE et al. |
| Court | Montana Supreme Court |
Appeal from District Court, Mineral County; Albert Besancon, Judge.
Action to quiet title by Mineral County, Montana, a corporate body politic against W. L. Hyde, as administrator with the will annexed of the estate of John A. Kelly, deceased, and another. From a judgment for the plaintiff, defendants appeal.
Affirmed.
W. L Hyde, of Superior, and Donovan Worden, of Missoula, for appellants.
Walter Murphy, of Superior, for respondent.
This action was brought by plaintiff to quiet title to a small strip of land in the town of Superior containing about 1.34 acres. The complaint is in the usual form in a suit to quiet title together with a plea that plaintiff has been in possession of the property adversely for more than ten years before the commencement of the action. The answer of the defendants disclaims any interest in a portion of the property, and otherwise is a general denial. The cause was tried to the court sitting without a jury. The court found for the plaintiff and defendants appeal.
Several specifications of error are made, but the principal question raised is whether the findings of the court are sustained by the evidence.
The county claims the land by virtue of a dedication as a street made by I. R. Eidell and Mrs. M. A. Eidell, dated May 25 1914, at a time when Superior was situated in Missoula county. The defendants claim the property by virtue of a deed subsequently made covering all the interest of the Eidells in the land and lots in the platted area. Whether or not the evidence sustains the decree involves an interpretation of the plat and dedication made by I. R. and Mrs. Eidell.
The rule is that a plat, when accompanied by a certificate of dedication and accepted and filed, has the same force and effect as a deed (§ 4985, Rev.Codes; Kipp v. Davis-Daly Copper Co., 41 Mont. 509, 110 P. 237, 36 L.R.A.,N.S 666, 21 Ann.Cas. 1372), and, with exceptions not applicable here, should be interpreted in favor of the grantee. § 6852 Rev.Codes. The plat filed by Mr. and Mrs. Eidell covers four blocks north and south and three blocks east and west, and has all the lots numbered in each block save and except one solid block is devoted to a site for the court house, another solid block for a high school, and another solid block for the district school. It contains streets running north and south, and avenues running east and west. The certificate made by Mr. and Mrs. Eidell reads as follows:
"I, I. R. Eidell, do hereby certify that--have caused to be surveyed, subdivided and platted into lots, blocks, streets and alleys as shown by the plat and certificate of survey hereunto annexed, the following described tract of land, to-wit:
Beginning at a point 1115.1 feet No~ 02 1/2' W from center of Sec 34, T. 17 N., R. 26 W., B. M., thence No~ 2 1/2' W. 1200 feet, more or less, to the Missoula River, thence in an easterly direction along...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wicklund v. Sundheim
...context of the grantor, in fact, being a public body—the City of Missoula. A political body was also the grantor in Mineral Cnty. v. Hyde, 111 Mont. 535, 111 P.2d 284 (1941), which was relied upon by the Court in Missoula v. Mix. We simply have never addressed the interpretation of the exce......
-
Aarestad v. Country, CV 16-51-M-DLC-JCL
...that Mineral County owns fee simple title to Two Rivers Road and that it is a county road. For support, she relies on Mineral Cty. v. Hyde, 111 P.2d 284, 285 (Mont. 1941), and Mont. Code Ann § 60-1-201. However, Hyde does not support her position because it involves the intent behind the de......