Mueller v. Bohn

• Decision Date: 07 February 1919
• Citation: 41 N.D. 537,171 N.W. 255
• Parties: MUELLER v. BOHN et al.
• Court: North Dakota Supreme Court

41 N.D. 537

171 N.W. 255

MUELLER

v.BOHN et al.

Supreme Court of North Dakota.

Feb. 7, 1919.

Syllabus by the Court.

The purpose of the registration statute is merely to give subsequent purchasers and creditors a ready means of seeing the records of prior conveyances. When a person is in possession under a conveyance, or where a party has actual or constructive notice of the same, then the recording statute does not apply. “Good faith” means good faith; it means an honest intention to abstain from taking an unconscientious advantage of another, even through the forms and technicalities of the law.

Appeal from District Court, Hettinger County; W. C. Crawford, Judge.

Action by Carl Mueller against Paul Bohn and others. Judgment for plaintiff, and the Stone-Ordean-Wells Company appeals. Affirmed.Thomas H. Pugh and Otto Thress, both of Dickinson, for appellant.

Jacobsen & Murray, of Mott, for respondent.

ROBINSON, J.

This is a statutory action to determine an adverse claim to land. In such an action the complaint is a mere challenge to defendant to set forth and establish his adverse claim, or to abandon it. Defendant becomes practically the plaintiff and takes the affirmative in pleading and proof. Steinwand v. Brown, 38 N. D. 607, 166 N. W. 129. The complaint in this case merely avers that the plaintiff owns block 43 in the village of Mott, and in Brown's Second addition to Mott, and that the defendant claims some title or interest in the same adverse to the plaintiff. The answer, which is the real complaint, avers: That some time in the year 1911, the defendant Paul Bohn became the owner of the premises described in the complaint, and was the owner thereof until May 1, 1917; that on August 13, 1914, this defendant recovered judgment against said defendant Paul Bohn, Sr., for the sum of $1,796.20, and judgment was thereafter, on August 20, 1914, docketed in the office of the clerk of the district court of Hettinger county, and that the same is a valid lien against the premises.

The reply, or answer, expressly denies that the judgment and lien mentioned in the answer is superior to the rights and claims of this plaintiff, and alleges that it constitutes only a cloud upon the title. However, that is an admission of the judgment and the docket.

As the record shows, in October, 1910, William Brown, the owner of block 43, conveyed the same to Paul Bohn, Sr. Then, in December, 1911, Paul Bohn conveyed the some by mortgage deed to one Trousdale to secure $2,600 and interest. Trousdale assigned the mortgage to the First National Bank of Mott. It assigned the same to Carl Mueller, who foreclosed and obtained a sheriff's deed to the block. On February 1, 1914, the senior Bohn conveyed the block to a junior Bohn, and it appears the conveyance was made in good faith and for a valuable consideration, and the grantee at once took and retained possession of the block. Subsequently, on August 14, 1914, the appellant recovered and docketed the judgment as alleged. The claim of appellant is that its judgment is a prior lien, because that in the mortgage and in the deed made by Paul Bohn, Sr., the block was not sufficiently described. However, in each of said conveyances the description was block 43, in the village of Mott, as the same is laid down and described in the plat of said village on file in...