Rachels v. Stecher Cooperage Works

• Decision Date: 02 May 1910
• Parties: RACHELS v. STECHER COOPERAGE WORKS
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

128 S.W. 348

95 Ark. 6

RACHELS v. STECHER COOPERAGE WORKS

Supreme Court of Arkansas

May 2, 1910

Appeal from White Chancery Court; John E. Martineau, Chancellor reversed.

STATEMENT BY THE COURT.

This is a suit by appellee under sections 649 and 650 of Kirby's Digest to quiet title to various tracts of land described in the complaint, consisting of acres, and situated in township 7 north, range 5 west, in White County, Arkansas. The appellee exhibits with its complaint the deeds under which it claims, and alleges as follows:

"Its grantors in all of said deeds and conveyances were at the time of the execution and delivery of said deed or deeds to this petitioner the fee simple owner or owners to [of] the lands so conveyed to it; and your petitioner alleges that it at least acquired by said deeds and conveyances set out in this petition, and referred to as exhibits (from A to N inclusive), a color of title to each and every tract of land hereinbefore and hereinafter described; that no one is in possession of said lands, or any part thereof, claiming title thereto adversely to this petitioner; and if any person or persons other than this petitioner has, or claims to have any interest or title in and to said lands, or any part or tract thereof, this petitioner has no knowledge of same. This petitioner would further state that it not only has a fee simple title and a prima facie title to said lands, but, as aforesaid, has a color of title thereto, and has had such color of title to all of said lands for more than seven years last past; and that it has for more than seven years last past in succession paid the taxes on each and every tract of said lands, claiming to be the owner thereof, and claiming title thereto."

Appellant filed an "intervention," in which he denies that appellee is the owner of any of the land described in its petition. Appellant then proceeds to set up title in himself to certain of the tracts described in appellee's petition. He deraigns title thereto through mesne conveyances from the government, and further avers as follows:

"Fourth. This intervener admits that certain deeds set out in petitioner's petition were executed by the various parties named, describing various tracts of land mentioned in petitioner's petition, but denies that said deeds conveyed title to the said Stecher Cooperage Works, and denies that said deeds conveyed to it any right, title or color of title.

"Fifth. This intervener admits that various parties, companies or corporations have caused tax receipts to be issued, showing payment of the taxes assessed against said lands, but denies that the Stecher Cooperage Works acquired any right, title or interest in said lands because of said tax receipts, or by any pretended payment of taxes.

"Sixth. The intervener admits that the Stecher Cooperage Works is a Missouri corporation, but denies that as such it has any right to acquire lands in the State of Arkansas; denies that the petitioner, the Stecher Cooperage Works, has a right to plead statutes of limitation or laches, or to in any manner acquire, claim or hold titles to land in the State of Arkansas.

"Wherefore this intervener, J. N. Rachels, would ever pray that the petition of the petitioner, the Stecher Cooperage Works, be dismissed for want of equity, and for such other and further orders as this honorable court may, in its wisdom, find right and equitable."

By amendment to the "intervention" appellant set up that the various tax deeds and other deeds through which appellee claimed were void and a cloud on appellant's title.

Appellee answered the intervention, denying that appellant had title to the lands claimed by him, and setting up that appellee had patent to a certain tract describing it, and as to a certain other tract appellee alleged that it had been in actual adverse possession for more than fourteen years continuously paying the taxes thereon. As to this tract it pleaded the seven years statute of limitations. The appellee then alleged as follows:

"Petitioner states that said Pierce and the heirs of the said W. T Jones, from whom the intervener claims a pretended original title to said lands and their grantees, including the intervener herein, have not paid taxes on said land for over twenty-five years last past; that the said H. A. Pierce and W. T. Jones and heirs long since abandoned said lands, and ceased to set up any claim or title thereto, because of the fact that they were practically worthless, and at the time had no market value; that at the time they were induced to make quitclaim deeds to the grantor of the said B. C. Rhodes, they claimed no title to said lands, and quitclaimed same for a trifle upon the representation, and with the distinct understanding, that they had no title thereto, and that said quitclaim deeds were wanted for the purpose of perfecting the then paramount title to said land. Petitioner states that said lands are now valuable, and worth from $ 10 to $ 15 per acre, and it is because of this fact that petitioner's title is being disturbed by the present intervener, and were heretofore disturbed by his grantor, B. C. Rhodes. Petitioner states that the intervener's claim herein ought not to be heard and ought not to be entertained; that in equity and good conscience he is barred by laches, which, in addition to constructive possession of said lands by payment of taxes for more than seven years, petitioner specially pleads."

The cause was heard upon the pleadings, title deeds, records, tax receipts, and depositions of witnesses, and from these the court found the facts to be "that the lands were granted to the State by the United States as swamp lands; that various parties obtained title to these lands from the State; that petitioner obtained deeds to the lands; that the lands were not in petitioner's possession, were wild; that petitioner paid the taxes thereon, on a part from 1894 to 1908; on a part from 1891 to 1908, and on the remainder from 1895 to 1908, inclusive of all cases. That these taxes were paid by petitioner while claiming title to the lands, and under color of title.

Upon these facts, as found by the court, it rendered judgment dismissing the intervention and quieting title in appellee to the lands described in its petition. Appellant seeks by this appeal to reverse that judgment.

Decree affirmed.

Rachels & Robinson, for appellant.

The right of appellee to hold land is controlled by the law of Missouri. 71 Ark. 379; 90 Tex. 533; 149 Mo. 57; 109 U.S. 527; 155 Mo. 95; 13 Pet. 588; 51 Mich. 145; 16 N.W. 314; 68 L. R. A. 815; 25 Mich. 214; 22 N.W. 505; 25 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 32; 6 Kans. 255; 4 So. 235; 23 Ill. 609; 14 Pet. 122; 43 Am. & Eng. Corp. Cas. 459; 72 Ill. 50. The charter being silent on that point, appellee cannot hold land in Missouri. 2 Idaho 26; 32 Mo. 305; 34 Conn. 541; 7 N.Y. 471; 144 Mo. 588; 21 Pa. 22; 5 Conn. 572; 38 N.W. 43; 64 L. R. A. 399; 4 Mass. 140. If any doubt arises as to its power, that doubt must be solved against the corporation. 45 L. R. A. 680; 43 Mo. 353; 135 N.Y. 404; 10 Mo. 559; 31 Mo. 185; 108 Mo. 559; 16 How. 534; 9 Mo. 507; 130 Mo. 10; 23 How. 435; 64 L. R. A. 376; 24 L.Ed. 1036; 32 L.Ed. 842.

A contract of a corporation that is outside the object of its creation is of no validity. 82 Mo.App. 661; 43 L.Ed. 1007; 42 L.Ed. 198; 41 Id. 821; 50 Miss. 403; 73 Mo. 135; 35 L.Ed. 55; 3 Wend. 573; 10 Wis. 230; 37 Cal. 543. Such contracts cannot be made good by laches or ratification. 132 F. 721; 35 L.Ed. 67; 139 U.S. 24; 25 L.Ed. 950; 101 U.S. 71; 41 L.Ed. 822; 165 U.S. 538. And the question of its validity may be raised by any interested party. 132 F. 721; 174 U.S. 370; 37 Cal. 543; 53 N.Y. 363; 10 Mass. 57; 120 Ill. 447; 11 N.E. 899. The phrase "such land as the purposes of the corporation shall require" signifies such land as will give it the room it requires. 3 Zab. 514; 133 U.S. 21; 66 S.W. 485; 1 Dutch. 316; 43 N.Y. 137; 33 So. 84; 45 Mo. 212; 9 Rich. L. 236. Appellee acquired no title to the land. 60 Ark. 120; 35 S.W. 898; 101 Mo.App. 569; 116 Ill. 375; 197 Mo. 507; 71 Ala. 60; 33 N.E. 166; 103 Ala. 371; 15 So. 944; 41 L.Ed. 817; 100 Va. 438; 77 Ark. 203; 60 Ark. 120; 102 Mo. 413; 55 Ark. 625; 19 A. B. R. 361; 124 Mo.App. 349; 8 Gray 206; 6 Biss. 420; 41 Ind. 1; 25 Wend. 648; 37 Mo. 398; 20 O. 283; 97 S.W. 636; 95 S.W. 344; 35 S.W. 898. In a suit to quiet title, complainant must show title. 82 Ark. 294; 80 Ark. 31; 45 So. 480; 77 Ark. 338; 74 Ark. 387; 44 Ark. 436. Delay on the part of the defendant is not available to the plaintiff unless it amounts to an estoppel in pais. 89 Ark. 19; 88 Ark. 395; Id. 478; 155 U.S. 314; 13 N.J.Eq. 19; 13 App. Cas. 543; 88 Ark. 404; 75 Ark. 194; 81 Ark. 301. The statute of limitations will not run in favor of one who absents himself from the State so that process cannot be served on him. 158 Pa. 521; 7 Am. Dec. 739; 16 Id. 290; 19 Am. Rep. 293; 94 N.C. 231; 24 Ark. 556; 47 Ark. 170.

J. H. Harrod and J. G. & C. B. Thweatt, for appellee.

Parties cannot avoid or neglect paying taxes for 25 years or more and then, when the land becomes valuable, come in and have their rights recognized and established. 81 Ark. 353; Id. 432.

OPINION

WOOD, J., (after stating the facts).

First. It was shown that appellee was a Missouri corporation chartered "to carry on the cooperage business for pecuniary profit or gain, and to cut, buy, manufacture and sell staves, and to manufacture and sell casks, barrels, kegs and all other articles whatsoever belonging to the cooperage business."

Appellant contends that, such being the express powers granted to appellee, under the laws of Missouri, which must control appellee was prohibited from holding any lands, and that its acquisition of lands was ultra vires...