Stickel v. Carter

• Decision Date: 24 September 1941
• Docket Number: 6943
• Citation: 63 Idaho 78,117 P.2d 477
• Parties: A. C. STICKEL, Respondent, v. ISABELLA CARTER, JOHN T. TAGGART, * * * FRANCIS B. CHAPMAN sometimes known as F. B. Chapman and ANNE CHILSON CHAPMAN, his wife, * * * * Appellants
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

117 P.2d 477

63 Idaho 78

A. C. STICKEL, Respondent, v. ISABELLA CARTER, JOHN T. TAGGART, * * * FRANCIS B. CHAPMAN sometimes known as F. B. Chapman and ANNE CHILSON CHAPMAN, his wife, * * * * Appellants

No. 6943

Supreme Court of Idaho

September 24, 1941

Rehearing denied October 7, 1941

QUIETING TITLE-TAX DEED-DEFECTIVE DESCRIPTIONS-ADVERSE POSSESSION-PAYMENT OF TAXES-APPEAL AND ERROR-FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.

1. In quiet title suit, each party must recover on the strength of his own title.

2. Descriptions of land in transfers of mining claims to county based upon tax liens and in transfers by county to another party consisting of "A 35 acre tract in North half of Sec. 11" and "35.52 acre tract in Section 11," were fatally defective, and neither county nor other party acquired title thereby.

3. In action to quiet title, evidence that plaintiff had held land under color of title for more than prescriptive period justified finding in his favor. (I. C. A. secs. 5-203, 5-207.)

4. County's lien for unpaid taxes may be enforced by statutory method.

5. Where mining claim was sold for unpaid taxes by county to defendant, but transfers to county and to defendant were defective because of incomplete description in deed and title failed, in a subsequent action to quiet title although defendant did not ask for reimbursement, plaintiff should in equity repay defendant for amounts paid to county for delinquent taxes.

6. In action to quiet title to mining claims which had been sold for unpaid taxes by county to defendant but transfers to county and to defendant were fatally defective and title failed, upon judgment for plaintiff amount due defendant as reimbursement for payment of delinquent taxes was offset by any waste committed on land by defendant and case was remanded to trial court so that parties could reform pleadings and litigate matter of waste.

7. Claimant holding land by adverse possession, within meaning of statutes, need pay only taxes levied and assessed. (I. C A. sec. 5-210.)

8. Where no taxes were levied or assessed on land during period of eight years in which claimant held land under color of title, claimant could not be divested of his title by adverse possession by claim that he had not met requirements of statutes on adverse posssession of paying taxes levied and assessed on land. (I. C. A. sec. 5-210.)

Rehearing denied October 7, 1941.

APPEAL from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District for Caribou County. Hon. Isaac McDougall, Judge.

Action to quiet title. Judgment affirmed but remanded for further proceedings in regard to reimbursement of payments for delinquent taxes.

Costs awarded to respondent against Francis B. Chapman.

F. E Tydeman, for Appellants.

The plaintiff must depend upon the strength of his own title and not on the weakness of any other party. (Washington State Sugar Co. vs. Goodrich, 27 Idaho 26; Steinour vs Oakley State Bank, 45 Idaho 472; Snell vs. Stickler, 50 Idaho 648; 22 Cal. Jur., 167.)

The tax deed to the appellant is prima facie evidence of the title. (22 Cal. Jur., 168; Andrews vs. Northstreet Canal, C052 Idaho 117; Armstrong vs. Jarron, 21 Idaho 747; Shaid vs. Crolford, 54 Idaho 408.)

R. J. Dygert, for Respondent.

Counsel for respondent cites no authorities.

GIVENS, J. BUDGE, C.J., and MORGAN, HOLDEN and AILSHIE, JJ., concur.

OPINION

GIVENS, J.

Respondent brought suit to quiet title to two patented sulphur mining claims variously and ununiformly described in the filings on, and locations and transfers thereof, but now sufficiently known and described as Lot 38 and Lot 1351 with their respective descriptions by metes and bounds, in the Southwest quarter and the Southeast quarter of Section 2, Township 9 South, Range 42 E. B. M., in the Soda Springs Mining District as set forth in the complaint and decree. Numerous parties were named as defendants. All defaulted except Caribou County and the appellants Chapman and wife (hereafter referred to as appellants).

Caribou County filed the following disclaimer: "Comes now Caribou County one of the defendants in the above entitled action and disclaims any interest in and to the real property described in the complaint in the above entitled action except that Caribou County has a lien on said premises for the 1939 taxes as shown by tax collectors No. 1598, for $ 12.02, together with penalty and interest." Appellants filed an answer and cross-complaint asserting title in themselves and asking only that such be so quieted.

The facts are contained in the abstract of title introduced over appellants' objection that the abstract did not show title in respondent and a stipulation reciting substantially, so far as pertinent, that respondent has been in possession of the property since September 15, 1922; that appellants and their joint predecessors in interest went into possession March 8, 1937, and claim under a deed from Caribou County, which received the property because of delinquent and unpaid taxes.

It is axiomatic that in a quiet title suit each party must recover on the strength of his own title. (Washington State Sugar Co. v. Goodrich, 27 Idaho 26, 147 P. 1073; Steinour v. Oakley State Bank, 45 Idaho 472, 262 P. 1052; Snell v. Stickler, 50 Idaho 648, 299 P. 1080; Federal Land Bank v. Union Central Life Ins. Co., 51 Idaho 490, 6 P.2d 486; Kantola v. Hendrickson, 52 Idaho 217, 12 P.2d 866; Gerber v. Wheeler, (Idaho) 115 P.2d 100.)

The descriptions in the transfers to the county which are the basis of appellants' asserted title consisted merely of the following: "A 35 acre tract in North half of Sec. 11 Tp. 9 S. R. 42 E. B. M. together with all and singular the tenements, hereditaments and appurtenances thereunto belonging or in anywise appertaining, and the reversion and reversions, remainder and remainders, rents, issues and profits thereof, and all the estate, right, title, interest, possession and claim, as well in law as in equity, of the said Tax Collector of the said County as a taxing unit and Collector for other taxing units." (sheet 99) and "35.52 acre Tract in Section 2, Twp. 9 S. R. 42 East Boise Meridian, together with all and singular the tenements, hereditaments, and appurtenances thereunto belonging or in anywise appertaining," (sheet 106). These were fatally defective, and neither the county or appellants acquired title thereby. (Little v. Burlingham, 33 Idaho 757, 198 P. 464; Hedrick v. Lee, 39 Idaho 42, 227 P. 27; Western Loan & Building Co. v. Bandel, 57 Idaho 101, at 110, 63 P.2d 159; Norrie v. Fleming, (Idaho) 112 P.2d 482; Miller v. Daniels, (Wash.) 92 P. 268.)

As to appellants' objections to respondent's title, respondent has held under color of title for more than the prescriptive period, which justified a finding in his favor. (5-203 and 5-207 I. C. A.; Boise City v. Wilkinson, 16 Idaho 150, at 173, 102 P. 148; Wilson v. Linder, 21 Idaho 576, at 588, 123 P. 487, 42 L. R. A. (N. S.) 242, 1913E Ann. Cas. 148; Crandall v. Goss, 30 Idaho 661, 167 P. 1025.)

The county's asserted lien may be enforced by the statutory method.

The property was sold by the county to appellants for $ 40. Though appellants did not ask for reimbursement thereof, in the event of the failure of their title, respondent should in equity repay them. (Johnson v. Sowden, 25...