Shippen v. Kimball
Citation | 27 P. 813,47 Kan. 173 |
Parties | JOSEPH SHIPPEN v. A. S. KIMBALL |
Decision Date | 10 October 1891 |
Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Error from Lyon District Court.
THE facts are substantially stated in the opinion. Judgment for Kimball, at the September term, 1888. Shippen brings the case to this court.
Judgment affirmed.
C. N Sterry, for plaintiff in error.
J. R McClure, for defendant in error.
OPINION
A controversy arose between the parties to this proceeding with reference to the ownership of the southwest quarter of section 10, township 18 south, of range 10 east, situated in Lyon county, Kansas. Each of the parties had obtained a judgment upon constructive service quieting the title to the real estate in himself, but these judgments were vacated by stipulation, and the question as to who was the actual owner of the real estate as between them was submitted to the trial court without pleadings, and upon an agreed statement of facts, under the provisions of § 525 of the civil code. From the stipulated facts it appears that the land in controversy was purchased at the United States land office at Lecompton on October 6, 1859, by one Wesley Wells, by the location of a land warrant upon it, issued under the act of Congress of March 3, 1855. On the day of the location Wesley Wells executed to T. H. Walker a mortgage on the same tract of land, to secure the payment of a promissory note given by him to Walker for the sum of $ 175.70, being the purchase-money for the land so purchased. The mortgage was recorded on October 7, 1859. On November 25, 1859, Wesley Wells made a written assignment of the certificate of location issued to him by the land office, and delivered the same to Morris Cohn, and authorized the assignee to receive the patent for the land, and on May 4, 1878, the United States issued to Morris Cohn, as the assignee of Wesley Wells, the patent for the land in controversy. This assignment of the certificate of location was never recorded nor brought to the notice of either Walker or Kimball until after each had procured his title. On August 10, 1863, Walker instituted a foreclosure proceeding against Wesley Wells alone, and endeavored to obtain constructive service upon him. The affidavit made and filed for the purpose of obtaining a constructive service stated, among other things, "that the service of a summons cannot be made on the said Wesley Wells within the state of Kansas; that this is an action brought for the recovery of real property under a mortgage, situated in said county of Lyon." The notice published pursuant to the affidavit reads as follows:
At the October term, 1863, a judgment was rendered in favor of T. H. Walker, decreeing a foreclosure and sale of the land described in the mortgage, and upon an order of sale issued on the judgment a sale of the real estate was made by the sheriff of Lyon county on March 3, 1866, to T. H. Walker, which sale was confirmed by the court, and the sheriff executed and delivered to Walker a deed for the premises. On July 24, 1877, the sheriff of Lyon county, in pursuance of a judgment theretofore rendered by the district court against T. H. Walker, and a sale on said judgment, duly made, executed and delivered to A. S. Kimball a sheriff's deed, purporting to convey the land in controversy to A. S. Kimball; and it is agreed that Kimball by the deed received a conveyance of any and all interest which Walker ever had or obtained in the land in controversy. On May 4, 1878, Morris Cohn, who obtained the patent for the land as the assignee of Wesley Wells, conveyed and transferred all the title and interest which he acquired in the land to Joseph Shippen, the plaintiff in error, and he founds his title to the real estate upon this transfer and conveyance. The land in controversy has always been vacant, unoccupied, and unimproved, and at the time when the foreclosure proceeding of Walker against Wells was commenced in the district court of Lyon county, and ever since, Wells has been absent from the state of Kansas, and service of summons could not be had upon him within the state. Upon these facts the trial court determined that the equity of the case was with Kimball, and that he was the owner and entitled to the possession of the land in controversy. Shippen excepted, and comes here asking a reversal.
It is conceded that when Wesley Wells purchased the land in controversy from the United States, on October 6, 1859, he became the absolute owner thereof with the entire title thereto, except the bare, naked legal title, which still remained in the United States, and would remain in the United States until the patent for the land should be issued. It is also conceded that Wells then had the right to mortgage the property to Walker as he did, or to any one else, or to dispose of the same as he might see fit; and it must be held, under the authorities, that the service of summons in the foreclosure suit of Thaddeus H. Walker against Wesley Wells, made by publication, cannot in this collateral proceeding be held to be void, but must be held to be valid, although the affidavit for service by publication is to some extent defective. (Ogden v. Walters, 12 Kan. 282; Claypoole v. Houston, 12 id. 324; Pierce v. Butters, 21 id. 124; Gillespie v. Thomas, 23 id. 138; Rowe v. Palmer, 29 id. 337; Harris v. Claflin, 36 id. 543, 551; Bogle v. Gordon, 39 id. 31.) It is also conceded that, except for the title of Walker and Kimball to the property in controversy, the title of Shippen would be good, and he would be the owner of the property. All the transactions and proceedings had in the present case, giving to Walker his title, were had under the registry laws of 1859, chapter 30; while all the transactions and proceedings had giving to Kimball his title and transferring Walker's title to Kimball, were had under the registry laws of 1868, (Gen. Stat. of 1868, ch. 22,) which laws, with some amendments, are still in force. (Gen. Stat. of 1889, ch. 22.) And all the transactions and proceedings had which give to Shippen his title were had under the registry laws of 1859, up to October 31, 1868, when they were afterward had under the registry laws of 1868. We think the questions involved in this case are governed and settled principally by the registry laws.
Both Kimball and Shippen claim title to the property in controversy under the same original owner, Wesley Wells, who was the original purchaser of the land from the United States. Walker furnished the purchase-money; Wells purchased the property, received the certificate of purchase, and then mortgaged the property to Walker to secure the purchase-money, and this mortgage was immediately placed upon record. Afterward Wells assigned his certificate of purchase to Cohn; but it does not appear that this assignment was ever proved or acknowledged or filed for record, as it might have been under the provisions of the registry laws; and hence the assignment was void under the registry laws of 1859 as to all subsequent purchasers for a valuable consideration without notice; (Act of 1859 relating to Conveyances § 13;) and void under the registry laws of 1868 as to all persons except such as had actual...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Pettis v. Johnston
... ... Grimes, 80 Kan. 429, 102 P ... 454; Douglass v. Lieberman, 9 Kan. App. 45, 57 P ... 254; Pierce v. Butters, 21 Kan. 125; Shippen v ... Kimball, 47 Kan. 173, 27 P. 813 ... The ... affidavit assailed in this case states that defendants are ... indebted to ... ...
-
Pettis v. Johnston
...Whitaker, 106 P. 1050; Ennis v. Grimes, 102 P. 454; Douglass v. Lieberman (Kan.) 57 P. 254; Pierce v. Butters: 21 Kan. 124; Shippen v. Kimball, 47 Kan. 173, 27 P. 813. ¶50 The affidavit assailed in this case states that defendants are indebted to plaintiff in the sum of $ 200 and interest, ......
-
Ollis v. Orr
... ... (Raymond v ... Nix, 5 Okla. 656, 49 P. 1110; Long v. Fife, 45 ... Kan. 271, 23 Am. St. Rep. 724, 25 P. 594; Shippen v ... Kimball, 47 Kan. 173, 27 P. 813; Washburn v ... Buchannan, 52 Kan. 417, 34 P. 1049; DcCorvet v ... Dolan, 7 Wash. 365, 35 P. 72, 1072.) ... ...
-
Finn v. Howard
... ... absolutely void, where the attack is made years after the ... judgment was rendered. (Shippen v. Kimball, 47 Kan ... 173, 27 P. 813.) It only illustrates the difference between a ... defective notice and no notice at all. The rule was ... ...