Sheets v. Stiefel
| Decision Date | 10 October 1947 |
| Docket Number | 17592. |
| Citation | 74 N.E.2d 921,117 Ind.App. 584 |
| Parties | SHEETS et al. v. STIEFEL et al. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Appeal from Steuben Circuit Court; Clyde C. Carlin, Judge.
Wood & Wood, of Angola, for appellants.
Mountz & Mountz, of Garrett, for appellees.
This controversy concerns the ownership of a strip of unplatted land in the city of Angola, Indiana. The land involved is located on the south side of Stoker Street approximately 100 feet west of North Wayne Street and has a 23 1/2 foot frontage and a depth of 66 feet. Both the appellants and the appellees claim to own this property and in the court below both sought to quiet title thereto as against the claims of the other. The case was tried to the Steuben Circuit Court without the intervention of a jury. The court found the facts specially and stated the following conclusions of law thereon: (1) That the law is with the defendants (the appellees); (2) that the defendants' title to the land in controversy should be quieted against the plaintiffs (appellants); and (3) that the defendants are entitled to recover costs. Judgment went accordingly and in this appeal the appellants make the following contentions as grounds for reversal: (1) The conclusions of law stated by the court are not warranted by its special finding of facts and therefore erroneous; and (2) the facts as found specially compel the statement of conclusions of law favorable to the appellants.
The appellees' cross-complaint, upon which they recovered the affirmative judgment here questioned, is in two paragraphs. The first is in the usual short form and merely alleges ownership and possession of the land in dispute and asserts that the appellants claim an interest therein adverse to their title, which claim is without right and unfounded. The second alleges ownership by adverse possession and unlawful claims by the appellants which cloud their title. Under the allegations of the first paragraph of the cross-complaint the appellees had the burden of proving the ownership of some interest in the land which was superior to the claims of the appellants and which entitled them to possession. Under the second paragraph of said cross-complaint the appellees had the burden of proving that they and their grantors had been in actual visible, notorious and exclusive possession, under claim of ownership, and hostile to the owner of the record title and to the world at large and which possession was continuous for the full period prescribed by the statute Philbin v. Carr, 1921, 75 Ind.App. 560, 582, 129 N.E. 19, 706, and also the payment of all taxes and special assessments legally levied against the property involved during such period. Sec. 3-1314, Burns' 1946 Replacement.
If the court failed to find any fact which it was essential for the appellees to prove in order to make a case under either paragraph of said cross-complaint its conclusions of law, as above set out, are erroneous. It has been held, where special findings are silent as to an essential fact, this court 'may, however, give heed to a fact appearing in the evidence which does not admit of dispute, in order to uphold the judgment.' Marion Trust Co. v. Bennett, 1907, 169 Ind. 346, 82 N.E. 782, 787, 124 Am.St.Rep. 228; American Income Ins Co. v. Kindlesparker, 1936, 102 Ind.App. 445, 200 N.E. 432. The transcript in this case, however, does not contain the evidence and therefore nothing can be added to the special findings by presumption, inference or intendment. State ex rel. v. Meiser, Trustee, 1929, 201 Ind. 337, 168 N.E. 185; Home Equipment Company Inc. v. Gorham, 1941, 218 Ind. 454, 33 N.E.2d 99; McClellan v. Tobin, 1942, 219 Ind. 563, 39 N.E.2d 772.
With these principles in mind we have examined the special finding of facts with care and only in findings Nos. 10 and 11 are there any facts found which in any way indicate that the appellees have any interest of any kind whatsoever in the land in controversy. In finding No. 11 the court finds that a tract of land '132 feet east and west and 66 feet north and south lying immediately west of the west boundary line of North Wayne Street in the city of Angola, Indiana, and lying immediately south of the south line of Stoker Street of said city' is shown by the plat book in the Auditor's office of Steuben County to be assessed to the appellees and that 'no taxes have been paid on said real estate or any part thereof since 1902 except as paid by the defendants (appellees) therein and their grantors.' The land involved is included in the above description but it seems to us that this finding is the mere recital of primary or evidentiary facts. The same may be said of finding No. 10 wherein the court finds that the appellees removed all fences and fence posts from a line established by a statutory survey as separating the land claimed by the appellants and that of one Newell.
These facts being primary and at best merely evidentiary must be disregarded unless they compel the conclusion that the appellees own the land in controversy. We do not think such conclusion must necessarily follow. It is common knowledge that occasionally land is assessed to the wrong person on the public records. Changes in ownership are not always promptly made on collateral records and a plat book indicating ownership in the appellees is far from conclusive. That portion of the finding in reference to the payment of taxes is negative in nature and is a far cry from a finding that the appellees and their grantors paid all the taxes and special assessments legally charged to the real estate in question as required by § 3-1314, Burns' 1946 Replacement, in adverse possession suits. See also Cooper v. Tarpley, 1942, 112 Ind.App. 1, 41 N.E.2d 640.
Except as above indicated the findings are silent as to how, from whom, or in what manner the appellees acquired any interest in or right to the disputed land. It is suggested by the appellees that finding No. 11 overcomes these defects and establishes title in them by adverse possession and that that finding alone is sufficient to sustain the court's conclusions of law. Assuming for the sake of discussion that finding No. 11 establishes title by adverse possession in one Heman G. Newell yet nowhere is it found that the appellees ever succeeded to the rights of Newell and as far as the findings disclose he is still possessed of such title.
It is our opinion that the conclusions of law on the facts found are erroneous and that the judgment so far as it...
To continue reading
Request your trial