Oldham v. Stephens

• Court: Kansas Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: GREEN, C.:
• Citation: Oldham v. Stephens, 45 Kan. 369, 25 P. 863 (Kan. 1891)
• Decision Date: 07 February 1891
• Parties: G. T. OLDHAM v. JOHN W. STEPHENS

25 P. 863

45 Kan. 369

G. T. OLDHAM v. JOHN W. STEPHENS

Supreme Court of Kansas

February 7, 1891

Error from Sedgwick District Court.

THE opinion states the case.

Judgment reversed.

Hallowell Hume & Gordon, for plaintiff in error.

J. R Shields, and Campbell & Dyer, for defendant in error.

GREEN C. All the Justices concurring.

OPINION

GREEN, C.:

John T. Stephens brought this action in the district court of Sedgwick county to set aside a deed, alleged to have been fraudulently obtained by G. T. Oldham, for lot number 36, on Court street, in the city of Wichita. At one time, it seems the plaintiff below had owned the lot in question, but did not pay the taxes assessed against it, and it had been sold for the taxes and a tax deed executed to the purchaser. Sometime after this, the grantee in this tax deed commenced a suit against Stephens, the former owner of the lot, to quiet title, and on the 22d day of October, 1883, obtained a judgment against him, quieting the title to said real estate as against Stephens and all persons claiming under him. Stephens being a non-resident of the state at the time, service was made upon him by publication. On the 3d day of January, 1887, Stephens and his wife made a quitclaim deed to Oldham of all their interest in and to the lot, and, on the 18th of January following, this action was commenced by Stephens to set aside this deed, alleging that the same had been obtained by deception as to the title and value of the lot. The claim was made that Oldham, through a brother who lived near Stephens, in Jasper county, Missouri, represented to Stephens that he had lost the title to said lot by a tax deed, and that the lot was of little value, being some distance from the business part of the city; that most of the improvements of the city were being built on the other side of the river from where this lot was located; that relying upon these representations, Stephens made the quitclaim deed, in consideration of $ 100, $ 10 of which was paid in cash sometime after the delivery of the deed; that Oldham assumed the payment of a debt of $ 40 which Stephens owed and gave his note for $ 50; that at this time the lot was reasonably worth $ 4,000. The answer of Oldham put in issue all of the allegations of the petition, except the agency of the brother living in Missouri.

At the November term, 1887, the case was tried by the court, and special findings of fact and conclusions of law were made in favor of the plaintiff. The defendant below brings the case to this court for review.

It is contended by the plaintiff in error that no fraud can be committed against a person respecting property in which be has no interest, where such person simply makes a quitclaim deed; that Stephens showed upon the trial of this action in the court below that at the time of the giving of the quitclaim deed he had no title to the lot. It appears from a record of a judgment in the same court, wherein Ida E. Harris was plaintiff and the defendant in error in this case was defendant, that Ida E. Harris was the owner and in the actual possession of this lot, and that the title to the lot had been...