Neponset Land & Live Stock Co. v. Dixon

• Decision Date: 27 July 1894
• Docket Number: 473
• Citation: 10 Utah 334,37 P. 573
• Court: Utah Supreme Court
• Parties: THE NEPONSET LAND AND LIVE STOCK COMPANY, A CORPORATION, APPELLANT, v. JULIA I. DIXON AND GEORGE EASTMAN, SR., HER GUARDIAN, RESPONDENTS. [1]

37 P. 573

10 Utah 334

THE NEPONSET LAND AND LIVE STOCK COMPANY, A CORPORATION, APPELLANT, v. JULIA I. DIXON AND GEORGE EASTMAN, SR., HER GUARDIAN, RESPONDENTS. ^[1]

No. 473

Supreme Court of Utah

July 27, 1894

APPEAL from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, Hon James A. Miner, Judge.

Action in ejectment by the Neponset Land and Live Stock Company against Julia I. Dixon and George Eastman, Sr., her guardian. From a judgment for defendants, the plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

Mr. W L. Maginnis, for appellant.

Mr. A G. Horn, Messrs. Evans & Rogers, and Messrs. Kimball & Gilbert, for respondents.

BARTCH, J. MERRITT, C. J., and SMITH, J., concur.

OPINION

BARTCH, J.

This is an action in ejectment brought by the plaintiff against the defendants, Julia I. Dixon, who is an insane person, and George Eastman, Sr., her guardian, to recover possession of a certain strip of land, being a part of section 24, township 8 N., range 6 E. It is 40 chains long by 6 chains and 10 links wide, and it, together with other land in the same section, was formerly owned by Albert H. Dixon, who was the patentee. Albert H. Dixon was at one time the husband of Julia I. Dixon, but at the time the transactions over which this controversy arose took place he was divorced from her. In the suit for divorce, it appears the court ordered him to convey to the defendant Julia I. Dixon a piece of land in section 24, the north line of which should be 94 rods north of the south line of the section, and on the 8th of June, 1891, he conveyed to her, by warranty deed, a piece of land, the north line of which was 99 rods north of the south line of section 24, and this included the strip of land in question. The defendants took immediate possession, and were so in possession on the 16th day of September, when the same grantor conveyed by deed, with other land, this same strip of land in controversy, to the plaintiff, and this last deed was placed of record before the deed of the defendant Julia I. Dixon. On the trial the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendants, and the court entered a judgment accordingly; and, upon motion for a new trial having been denied, the plaintiff appealed. There was a vast amount of evidence introduced in relation to the several government surveys, but, as both parties derive their title through a common source, and as the land in question is admittedly included and described in each conveyance, we think the questions arising under the several surveys are not material to the decision of this case.

The question which is decisive of the rights of the parties is whether the unrecorded deed of the defendant Julia I. Dixon is void as to the plaintiff company, under the facts and circumstances relating to the several conveyances. Counsel for appellant contends that the failure to record the prior deed produced such a result, as to the subsequent purchaser and such contention must prevail, unless the appellant, at the time of its purchase, had actual notice of the prior conveyance of the land in question to the defendant Julia I. Dixon. It does not appear from the evidence that the plaintiff ever was in possession of the land in dispute, but it does appear therefrom that the defendants went into possession, harvested crops from a portion of the...