Schlageter v. Gude
| Citation | 70 P. 428, 30 Colo. 310 |
| Case Date | October 06, 1902 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Colorado |
70 P. 428
30 Colo. 310
SCHLAGETER
v.
GUDE.
Supreme Court of Colorado
October 6, 1902
Error to district court, Lake county.
Action by Wilhelmina Gude against Joseph M. Schlageter. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Affirmed.
Defendant in error, as plaintiff, brought an action in the court below against plaintiff in error, as defendant, to quiet title to a lot. In her complaint she alleged, in substance, that she was the owner and in possession of the premises in question, and that the defendant claimed an estate or interest therein adverse to her, but had none. The defendant answered, admitting the possession of plaintiff, and set up title in himself. To this answer plaintiff filed a replication, which, so far as necessary to notice, averred, in substance, that she and her grantor had been in the undisputed, peaceable possession of such premises in good faith, under color of title based upon conveyances, for more than seven successive years, and during that period had paid all taxes assessed against the same. The defendant moved to strike this reply for the reason that it stated matters which should have been set out in the complaint, and could not be pleaded in a reply. This motion was denied. Over the objection of defendant that the complaint did not state a cause of action, plaintiff introduced a deed conveying the lot to her grantor, and also a deed for such premises from her grantor to herself. She also introduced testimony which established that she and her grantor had been in the actual, undisputed, and peaceable possession of such premises under such conveyances for more than seven successive years, and during that period had paid all taxes assessed against such premises. This testimony was undisputed. On behalf of defendant, testimony was introduced from which it appeared that the naked legal title to the premises was vested in him. From a decree in favor of plaintiff, the defendant brings the case here for review on error.
[30 Colo. 312] A. J. Sterling and A. Lynch, for plaintiff in error.
L. M. Goddard and S.C. Warner, for defendant in error.
GABBERT, J. (after stating the facts).
The main questions presented by counsel for defendant can be determined by a discussion of the following propositions: (1) Does the complaint state a cause of action? (2) Did the court err in overruling the motion to strike the replication? (3) Should the objection to the introduction of plaintiff's testimony have been sustained? (4) Did plaintiff establish a color of title based upon conveyances?
1. In an action to quiet title, it is sufficient to allege substantially in the complaint that the plaintiff is the owner and in possession of the premises the title to which is sought to be quieted, and that the party made defendant claims an interest or estate [30 Colo. 313] therein adverse to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gatrell v. Salt Lake County, 6635
...Millett v. Lagomarsino, 4 Cal. Unrep. 883, 38 P. 308; City of Lafayette v. Wabash Ry., 28 Ind.App. 497, 63 N.E. 237; Schlageter v. Gude, 30 Colo. 310, 70 P. 428; Mascall v. Murray, 76 Ore. 637, 149 P. 517. In actions to quiet title, plaintiff must recover upon the strength of his own title.......
-
Post Printing & Publishing Co. v. Shafroth
...Land & Town Co. v. Patton, 21 Colo. 503, 42 P. 673; Antlers Park R. R. Co. v. Cunningham, 29 Colo. 284, 68 P. 226; Schlageter v. Gude, 30 Colo. 310, 70 P. 428; United States Co. v. Newton, 50 Colo. 379, 115 P. 897; Jackson v. City of Denver, 41 Colo. 363, 92 P. 690; Stratton C. C. M. & D. C......
-
Williams v. Neddo, 7196
...v. Dusy (Cal.), 11 P. 606; Heeser v. Miller, 77 Cal. 193, 19 P. 375; Davis v. Crump, 162 Cal. 513, 123 P. 294; Schlageter v. Gudee, 30 Colo. 310, 70 P. 428; Parker v. Conrad, 74 Kan. 111, 85 P. 810.) In 3 Kinney on Irrigation and Water Rights (2d Ed.), page 2796, Section 1552, under the sub......
-
Hammitt v. Virginia Mining Co.
...Rough v. Simmons, 65 Cal. 227, 3 P. 804; Statham v. Dusy (Cal.), 11 P. 606; Heeser v. Miller, 77 Cal. 193, 19 P. 375; Schlageter v. Gude, 30 Colo. 310, 70 P. 428; Parker v. Conrad, 74 Kan. 111, 85 P. 810; Davis v. Crump, 162 Cal. 513, 123 P. 294.) BUDGE, J. Morgan, C. J., concurs. Rice, J.,......
-
Gatrell v. Salt Lake County, 6635
...Millett v. Lagomarsino, 4 Cal. Unrep. 883, 38 P. 308; City of Lafayette v. Wabash Ry., 28 Ind.App. 497, 63 N.E. 237; Schlageter v. Gude, 30 Colo. 310, 70 P. 428; Mascall v. Murray, 76 Ore. 637, 149 P. 517. In actions to quiet title, plaintiff must recover upon the strength of his own title.......
-
Post Printing & Publishing Co. v. Shafroth
...Land & Town Co. v. Patton, 21 Colo. 503, 42 P. 673; Antlers Park R. R. Co. v. Cunningham, 29 Colo. 284, 68 P. 226; Schlageter v. Gude, 30 Colo. 310, 70 P. 428; United States Co. v. Newton, 50 Colo. 379, 115 P. 897; Jackson v. City of Denver, 41 Colo. 363, 92 P. 690; Stratton C. C. M. & D. C......
-
Williams v. Neddo, 7196
...v. Dusy (Cal.), 11 P. 606; Heeser v. Miller, 77 Cal. 193, 19 P. 375; Davis v. Crump, 162 Cal. 513, 123 P. 294; Schlageter v. Gudee, 30 Colo. 310, 70 P. 428; Parker v. Conrad, 74 Kan. 111, 85 P. 810.) In 3 Kinney on Irrigation and Water Rights (2d Ed.), page 2796, Section 1552, under the sub......
-
Hammitt v. Virginia Mining Co.
...Rough v. Simmons, 65 Cal. 227, 3 P. 804; Statham v. Dusy (Cal.), 11 P. 606; Heeser v. Miller, 77 Cal. 193, 19 P. 375; Schlageter v. Gude, 30 Colo. 310, 70 P. 428; Parker v. Conrad, 74 Kan. 111, 85 P. 810; Davis v. Crump, 162 Cal. 513, 123 P. 294.) BUDGE, J. Morgan, C. J., concurs. Rice, J.,......