Snowden v. Tyler

• Decision Date: 09 February 1887
• Citation: Snowden v. Tyler, 21 Neb. 199, 31 N.W. 661 (Neb. 1887)
• Parties: DAVID L. SNOWDEN AND CHARLES SNOWDEN, APPELLEES, v. ELLA M. TYLER, ET ALS., IMP., ETC., APPELLANTS
• Court: Nebraska Supreme Court

31 N.W. 661

21 Neb. 199

DAVID L. SNOWDEN AND CHARLES SNOWDEN, APPELLEES, v. ELLA M. TYLER, ET ALS., IMP., ETC., APPELLANTS

Supreme Court of Nebraska

February 9, 1887

APPEAL from the district court of Otoe county.Heard below before MITCHELL, J.

Reversed.

Edwin F. Warren, for appellant.

1.A quit-claim deed acts as an estoppel.Franklin v Kelley,2 Neb. 111.The holder of title under a quit-claim is protected by statute.Morris v Daniels,35 O. St., 406, 420.A quit-claim deed in a chain of title does not deprive him who claims under it of the character of a bona fida purchaser.Chapman v Sims,53 Miss. 154.Brown v. Banner Coal Co.,97 Ill. 215.McConnel v. Reed, 4 Scam., 117.Morgan v. Clayton,61 Ill. 40.Bradbury v. Davis, 5 Col., 265.Fox v. Hall,74 Mo. 315.Willingham v. Hardin,75 Mo. 429;Id., 383.Springer v. Bartle, 54 Ia. 476.

2.A purchaser pendente lite, from one who was himself a purchaser bona fide, or even a fraudulent grantee from such a holder, is protected.A purchaser with knowledge of equities who buys from one who was an innocent purchaser for value holds the estate free as his grantor did.Westbrook v. Gleason,79 N.Y. 31.Varrick v. Briggs,6 Paige 323.Foot v. Burch, 5 Denio, 187.Wood v. Chapin,13 N.Y. 509.Collins v. Heath,34 Ga. 443.Choutcau v. Jones,11 Ill. 300.Erskine v. Decker,39 Me. 467.Fasset v. Smith,23 N.Y. 252.Dexter v. Harris,2 Mass. 531.Crocker v. Bellange,6 Wis. 645.Lowther v. Carleton, 2 Atk. 242.

3.Innocent purchasers from fraudulent grantees will be protected.Colquit v. Thomas,8 Ga. 258.Grimstone v. Carter,3 Paige 421.Scarlett v. Graham,28 Ill. 319.Snyder v. Roberts,13 Tex. 598.Erskine v. Decker,39 Me. 467.Miller v. Fraley,23 Ark. 735.Lea v. PolkCo., 21 How.(U. S.), 493.Brown v. Budd,2 Ind. 442.Godfrey v. Disbrow, Walker (Mich.), 270.Holmes v. Stout,4 N.J.Eq. 492.Bumpus v. Platner, 1 John. Ch., 213.Garavyn v. Bryant,83 Ill. 376; 84 Id., 451;85 Id., 597.Corbin v. Sullivan,47 Ind. 356.Stout v. Hyatt, 13 Kan. 232.

4.Title resting on priority of record of a second deed will prevail against title through a prior unrecorded deed from the same original grantor if any one of the mesne purchasers through whom the former title comes purchased in good faith and for a valuable consideration, without notice of said prior unrecorded deed.Shotwell v. Harrison,22 Mich. 410.Godfrey v. Disbrow, 2 WalkerCh., 260.Pringle v. Dunn,37 Wis. 443.Coffin v. Ray, 1 Met., 212.Glidden v. Hurst,24 Pick. 221.Boynton v. Rees,8 Pick. 329.And the subsequent recording of a prior deed will not affect purchasers under the prior title.Somes v. Brewer,2 Pick. 184.Trull v. Bigelow,16 Mass. 406.Hardin v. Harrington,11 Bush.(Ky.), 367, and authorities supra.

5.For further authorities upon the subject of notice, see: Low v. Blinco, 10 Bush (Ky.), 331.Losey v. Simpson,11 N.J.Eq. 246.Long v. Dollarhide,24 Cal. 218.Chicago v. Witt,75 Ill. 211;Id., 354.Ritzer v. Rankin,77 Ill. 289.Houston v. Stombumer,92 Ill. 75;32 Id., 529.Mayhem v. Crombs,14 O. St., 428.Ogle v. Turpin, 102 Ill. 152.

S. H. Calhoun, for appellees.

OPINION

MAXWELL, CH. J.

The plaintiffs brought an action against the defendants in the district court of Otoe county, and alleged in their petition--

"That in January, 1867, one Elijah Snowden--the father of the said plaintiffs--died at his residence in Indiana, a widower, and seized of the following described real estate situate in Otoe county, Nebraska, to-wit: Section twenty-three (23) township seven (7) range eleven (11) E., containing 640 acres.

"That said Elijah Snowden, at his death, left the following children: Adaline, now the wife of Samuel J. Leedy; Catharine, now the wife of Sylvester Snodgrass; Margaret, now the wife of James S. Ford; Sally, now the wife of Joseph Leedy; William T. Snowden, and the plaintiffs.That the above-named were all his children surviving him, and were and are his heirs at law.That the said Elijah Snowden derived his title to said real estate from one Elbert H. Shirk, by warranty deed, dated July 25, 1862.That said Shirk derived his title from one Barrett Blue, by warranty deed, dated December 11, 1860; that said Blue derived his title thereto from the United States under an entry made June 21, 1860, and a patent dated October 9, 1860.

"That said Elijah Snowden left no other estate in Nebraska; that all the balance was exhausted in the payment of his debts and expenses of settling his estate; that it was long doubtful whether or not said described lands in Nebraska would also have to be sold in order to pay his debts, but the same were finally settled out of his other property.This estate was fully settled in the proper tribunals in the state of Indiana, in March, 1882.

"That the above-named children of said Elijah inherited said land as his sole surviving heirs at law, became joint tenants thereof; that since said joint tenancy begun said Sallie Leedy has conveyed all her interest therein to her brotherDavid L. Snowden, who now holds and owns two-sevenths thereof; that Adaline Leedy, Catharine Snodgrass, Margaret Ford, and their respective husbands, and William T. Snowden, have each declined to become plaintiffs, and are therefore made defendants.

"That Ella M. Tyler, formerly Ella M. Poe, and C. L. Tyler, her husband, and E. E. Lyle, and Joseph Mastalka and Herman Floerke, and Connoy Hanks, have set up a claim or claims to said tract of land, and pretended to be owners thereof; that said pretended claim or claims are based upon a pretended quit-claim deed from said Elbert H. Shirk to one Adam Poe; that said quit-claim deed conveyed no right in and to said tract of land, nor to any one claiming by, through or under him, as do the defendants; that said pretended quit-claim deed was of a date long subsequent to the warranty deed from said Shirk to said Elijah Snowden, and that the same was and is a gross fraud upon the rights of said heirs at law in and to said land, and is a cloud upon the title of said heirs in and to the same; that the said defendants pretend to have made some division among themselves of their grantors of said tract of land, and to hold separate and distinct tracts based upon said pretended quit-claim deed from Shirk to Poe, and that by reason thereof the real owners of said land are and will be unable to obtain for said land, or for any portion or portions thereof, the full market value therefor, and will be inconvenienced and hindered in the exercise of their legal rights thereto.

"Wherefore said plaintiffs pray that the said pretended quit-claim deed from Shirk to Adam Poe, and all subsequent deeds from said Poe or any of his grantees, either remote or immediate, may be declared to be a cloud or clouds upon the title of the heirs of said Elijah Snowden deceased; that the same may be set aside and held for naught, and the said defendants Tyler, Lyle, Mastalka, Floerke, and Hanks, may be declared to have held said property as the trustees of, and for the said heirs of Elijah Snowden, deceased; that an accounting may be had, and that the proper parties may be put into the undisturbed and uninterrupted possession and sole control of the same, and for general relief in equity."

ANSWER OF CONNOY HANKS.

"Answer filed in said courtOctober 11, 1884.

"1.Denies each and every allegation not expressly admitted hereinafter.

"2.Alleges that he is the owner in fee simple, and in the open notorious, and undisturbed possession of the north-east quarter of section 23, town 7, range 11 east, in said county, being a portion of the same premises described in amended petition; that his said title thereto is derived through and from one Elbert H. Shirk mentioned in the petition, and is adverse, hostile, and independent of and paramount to the pretended title of the said plaintiffs and those under whom they claim, as set out in the petition; that this defendant, and those under whom he claims, have been in the quiet and peaceable possession of said above-described quarter section of land since September 19, 1870, claiming to own the same adversely to all the world by paramount title; that under their said title defendant and those under whom he claims have owned, occupied, and enjoyed the same and every part thereof for more than ten years next preceding the commencement of this action, wherefore the defendant pleads the bar of the statute of limitation.

"3.Alleges further that one Lefford H. Purcell was his grantor, by deed dated December 23, 1882, said deed filed for record in said Otoe county, January 6th, 1883; that defendant paid said Purcell therefor $ 700 cash, and entered into possession; that at the date of said purchase defendant was entirely ignorant of any claims or demands of said plaintiffs in or to said quarter section; that said Purcell purchased the same October 25, 1881, of one Charles F. Weibke for the sum of $ 1,500; that said Weibke purchased the same of one George L. Bittinger, June 21, 1875, for $ 1,600; that said Bittinger purchased the same, including other lands, of one G. Z. Rayhouser, July 14, 187.., for the sum of $ 2,600; that said Rayhouser purchased the same including other lands, August 4, 1873, of L. F. D'Gette and E. F. Warren, for $ 2,800; that said D'Gette and said Warren purchased the same from Adam W. Poe, December 1, 1870, for $ 500; that each of the several deeds aforementioned were recorded in the office of clerk of Otoe county immediately after the execution and delivery.That said several owners, to-wit, Purcell, Weibke, Bittinger, and Rayhouser, were each an innocent purchaser of said premises for value without any knowledge or information of any claim or interest therein on the part of said plaintiffs or anybody...