Parker v. Vinson

• Decision Date: 25 January 1899
• Citation: 77 N.W. 1023,11 S.D. 381
• Parties: CLEMENA PARKER et al., Plaintiffs and appellants, v. WILLIAM M. VINSON and Clara B. Vinson, Defendants and respondents.
• Court: South Dakota Supreme Court

11 S.D. 381

77 N.W. 1023

CLEMENA PARKER et al., Plaintiffs and appellants, v. WILLIAM M. VINSON and Clara B. Vinson,

Defendants and respondents.

South Dakota Supreme Court

Appeal from Circuit Court, Union County, SD

Hon. E. G. Smith, Judge

Modified

W. E. Gantt and H. M. Wallace

Attorney for appellants.

Ira L. Nichols, E. C. Ericson, and French & Orvis

Attorney for respondent.

Opinion filed January 25, 1899

CORSON, P. J.

This was an action to recover possession of a certain tract of land in Union county. The defendants in their answer denied the allegations of the complaint, except that they were in possession holding adversely to plaintiffs. They also claimed title to the premises under and by virtue of two tax deeds executed by the treasurer of Union county. They also alleged that the plaintiffs had abandoned the said property, and interposed a counterclaim in which they claimed the value of the improvements made by them upon the premises in controversy while so holding adversely to the plaintiffs under color of title and in good faith. Judgment was entered in favor of the plaintiffs for the possession of the property, and for the defendants for the value of the improvements. From this judgment the plaintiffs appeal to this court, and have assigned a large number of errors; but, in the view we take of the case, it will not be necessary to discuss at length all of the errors assigned. The evidence in the case is not before us, as the appeal is taken from the judgment alone, which only brings up for review the pleadings, findings of the court, and judgment.

The plaintiffs and appellants contend that the court below erred in holding that the tax deeds under which the defendants claimed title constituted color of title, inasmuch as the court found that the said tax deeds were void upon their face. The respondents insist that the courts’ finding No. 39 established the fact that the defendants were in possession of. the premises, holding adversely to the plaintiffs, under color of title and in good faith, and that this court will presume that there was legal evidence to support the finding. But in this the respondents are not sustained by the finding, which reads as follows: “That the improvements made upon said premises by the defendants were made thereon in good faith, and while claiming title thereto adverse to the plaintiffs in this action.” Section 5455, Comp. Laws, provides as follows:

“In an action for the recovery of real. property, upon which permanent improvements have been made by a defendant or those under whom he claims, holding under color of title adversely to the claim of the plaintiff, in good faith, the value of such improvements must be allowed as a counterclaim by such defendant.”

It will be noticed that the finding omits to state that the premises were held under color of title. The term “claiming title” is not equivalent to “color of title.” By the terms of the section above quoted, it will be observed that there are three conditions necessary to be established by a party, to entitle him to recover for permanent improvements, viz. the holding adversely to the claim of plaintiffs, under color of title, and in good faith. If therefore, there was no other finding to show that defendants held under color of title, the findings would be insufficient to support the judgment. But by the tenth and twenty-third findings the court finds that the defendants claimed title under two deeds executed by the treasurer of Union county setting out the deeds in full in the findings. As the findings must be taken together, it sufficiently appears therefrom that the defendants claimed title under these tax deeds, and consequently held under color of title, if tax deeds constitute color of. title. It therefore becomes necessary for us to determine whether the tax deeds, though void upon their face, constitute color of title, within the meaning of the section of the statute above quoted.

The evident purpose and design of the provisions of the statute before quoted were to relieve a party who in good faith, under color of title, has made permanent improvements upon real property while in the possession of such property, and holding it adversely to the true owner. Seymour v. Cleveland,(1896). One of the essential elements of the section is that such improvements should have been made in good faith (that is, in honest belief that the title to the property was vested in the party making the improvements); and it can make no difference to him whether the deed under which he claims is void on its face or aliunde, if the improvements were made in good faith, as he is then equitably entitled to recover the value of such improvements. And we are of the opinion that, by a fair construction of the statute, he would be entitled to recover for his improvements in either case. Of course, if such party has actual knowledge that his title is invalid, or of facts that would create in his mind a reasonable doubt as to his title, or if he makes improvements after actual notice that his title is invalid, he would not be entitled to recover for such improvements. Wood v. Conrad,(1891). But in this case the court has found that the improvements were made in good faith, and such finding necessarily negatives any actual knowledge or information on the part of the defendants of any facts that would tend to impeach their title. Hence we are of the opinion that the tax deeds found by the court to be void upon their face do constitute such color of title, within the meaning of the statute, as entitles the defendants to recover for the value of their permanent improvements and taxes paid. The decisions upon this question are conflicting, and we shall not undertake to review them, but cite the following as supporting the views of this court. Black Tax Titles, § 473, 503, 505; Zwietusch v. Watkins, 61 Wis. 615, 21 N, W. 821; Wheeler v. Merriman, 30 Minn. 372, 15 NW 665; Smith v. Shattuck, 12 Or. 362, 7 Pac. 335; Ricker v. Butler, 45 Minn. 545, 48 NW 407; Railroad Co. v. Allfree, 64 Iowa 500, 20 NW 779; Colvin...