Polson Sheep Co. v. Owen

Decision Date18 September 1940
Docket Number7947.
PartiesPOLSON SHEEP CO. v. OWEN et al.
CourtMontana Supreme Court

Appeal from Fourth Judicial District Court, Lake County; Ralph L Arnold, Judge.

Action by the Polson Sheep Company against Wilson Owen and others to quiet title to realty. From a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, the named defendant appeals.

Judgment affirmed.

Lloyd I. Wallace and R. H. Wiedman, both of Polson, for appellant.

Donovan Worden, of Missoula, and A. J. Brower, of Polson (since deceased), for respondent.

ANGSTMAN Justice.

Plaintiff brought this action to quiet title to several tracts of land situated in Lake county. Defendant Owen by his answer disclaimed any interest in part of the land, but claimed to be the owner of part and held a lease on the remaining portion, which he alleged was owned by the state. Decree went in favor of plaintiff, and defendant appealed. The facts as developed at the trial may be summarized by stating the substance of the court's findings which were as follows:

The plaintiff, a Washington corporation, was organized in 1931 as the C. D. Small Company pursuant to a contract between Yakima Investment Company, Desert Sheep Company, Inc., and C. D Small. The assets of the three parties to the contract were transferred to the corporation, which thereupon entered into the business of raising sheep in Montana. C. D. Small was employed as field manager and acted as such until October, 1937. The corporation thereafter changed its name to that of Polson Sheep Company. Small, as field manager, without authority from plaintiff, purchased lands and entered into leases in his own name, paying for the lands and leases with funds belonging to plaintiff, but of which plaintiff had no knowledge until the fall of 1937. Thereafter Small gave to plaintiff his quitclaim deed which was duly recorded, conveying to plaintiff all real estate owned by or standing in his name in the counties of Lake and Sanders, but without describing any of the land. Small also assigned to plaintiff all leases held by him on property located in the state.

Title to one tract of land here involved, and particularly described in the findings, stood in the name of the Federal Land Bank of Spokane, but it had contracted to sell the same to C. D. Small; the contract was made for the benefit of plaintiff and payments thereon, together with taxes, were made by C. D. Small from plaintiff's funds, and plaintiff has used the land for the conduct of its business; defendant Owen made two payments of $60 each on this land without plaintiff's knowledge or consent. The court found that defendant is entitled to be reimbursed for these sums, and that upon compliance with the terms of the contract, and upon reimbursing defendant, plaintiff is entitled to a conveyance from the Federal Land Bank.

Another tract here involved was purchased by Small prior to the organization of plaintiff, from Jack Ray, and upon organization of plaintiff it was assigned to it, and payments on the contract were thereafter made by Small from plaintiff's funds. The court found that Small wrongfully and fraudulently took the deed in the name of Harry Owen, now deceased. Plaintiff has been in possession of the land and used it in carrying on its business, and has made improvements thereon. It has been assessed to plaintiff, and plaintiff has paid the taxes thereon. Defendant Wilson Owen claims this land by virtue of a deed from Harry Owen dated November 15, 1932, and recorded May 4, 1938. Defendant's interest, either as alleged owner or as lessee, in other lands rests upon similar facts.

The record discloses that defendant was in the employ of plaintiff for a period of about five years during which time the transactions here involved took place. The first point raised by defendant is that it was not proper in this action for plaintiff to prove an equitable interest in the property in the nature of a trust. The complaint simply alleged that plaintiff was and is the owner of the property and, hence, defendant contends it was precluded from showing that it had an equitable interest in the property.

The court properly permitted plaintiff to prove its equitable interest in the property. Under section 9487, Revised Codes, it is provided that the court has jurisdiction in such an action "to make a complete adjudication of the title to the lands named in the complaint, *** including jurisdiction to direct the cancellation of instruments constituting clouds upon such title, the execution of conveyances, where it appears that any party to such action should execute such conveyance or conveyances, the execution of satisfactions of mortgages and other apparent liens upon such land, or any part thereof, or the doing of any other act of a personal nature necessary to give effect to the rights of the respective parties to such action, as the same may be adjudicated by the court."

It is not necessary that plaintiff deraign his title in the complaint. Thomson v. Nygaard, 98 Mont. 529, 41 P.2d 1. Under the broad terms of section 9487,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • In re Turville
    • United States
    • United States Bankruptcy Courts. Ninth Circuit. U.S. Bankruptcy Court — District of Montana
    • 9 Marzo 2007
    ...may pursue a quiet title action. See Van Vranken v. Granite County, 35 Mont. 427, 90 P. 164, 166 (1907); Poison Sheep Co. v. Owen 106 P.2d 181, 183, 110 Mont. 601, 601 (Mont.1940). "... As courts of equity, bankruptcy courts `will look through the form to the substance of any particular tra......
  • State ex rel. O'Connell v. Mitchell
    • United States
    • Montana Supreme Court
    • 5 Octubre 1940

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT