Stoll v. Gottbreht

• Decision Date: 11 March 1920
• Parties: STOLL et al. v. GOTTBREHT et al.
• Court: North Dakota Supreme Court

45 N.D. 158

176 N.W. 932

STOLL et al.

v.GOTTBREHT et al.

Supreme Court of North Dakota.

Feb. 19, 1920.

Dissenting Opinion, March 11, 1920.

Syllabus by the Court.

Where a deceased entryman has died before final proof, and one of his heirs, claiming as a sole devisee of the land, has made final proof in behalf of the heirs, and a United States patent has issued to the heirs of the deceased entryman, such heirs take title to the land under the patent as cotenants, and as special purchasers or donees, and not by reason of any right or interest in the estate of the deceased.

Where, a prescriptive title to land is claimed, under section 5471, Comp. Laws 1913, through adverse possession and continuous payment of taxes for over ten years, by one who received a deed, subsequently lost and unrecorded, from his wife, one of the heirs of a deceased entryman who by will had devised such land to such wife, and where, upon final proof made by the wife, a United States patent is issued to the heirs of such deceased entryman, it is held:

(a) That the adverse claimant, the husband, named as an executor in the will, and knowing the nature of the title, is in the position of a cotenant with the other heirs in the land patented, and must establish affirmatively adverse and hostile possession by acts that serve to oust or disseise the other cotenants.

(b) That the heirs, having received specific bequests under the will, without knowledge of their rights as cotenants in the land, are not estopped to assert their titles.

Appeal from District Court, Rolette County; Buttz, Judge.

Action to quiet title by Anna Stoll and others against Mary Gottbreht and William Gottbreht. Judgment quieting title in defendant William Gottbreht, and plaintiffs appeal and demand a trial de novo. Judgment vacated, and judgment entered adjudging the ownership of the land as between plaintiffs and defendant William Gottbreht.

This is an action to quiet title in 160 acres of land in Rolette county, N. D. John Kelly made a homestead entry some three or four years before his death; he died in 1902 without having made final proof. His heirs are the defendant Mary Gottbreht, a daughter, the defendants Frank Higgens and Francis Higgens, the husband and daughter, respectively, of a postdeceased daughter, and the plaintiffs Anna Stoll and Loretta Erhart, the daughters of a prior deceased son. A short time before his death this entryman made a will, whereby he devised the homestead in question to the defendant Mary Gottbreht, and made other specific bequests therein, particularly $50 in money to be paid each of the plaintiffs. The defendant Wm. Gottbreht was designated as executor of this will. He kept this will in his possession for about two or three years. He then took the will to an attorney for probate. The will was lost by the attorney; it has never been probated. After the death of the entryman the defendants Mary Gottbreht and her husband, William Gottbreht, occupied this homestead. The defendant Mary Gottbreht later made final proof. The particular time and manner in which the same was made is not disclosed in the record. Patent was issued to the heirs of John Kelly, the entryman, on December 1, 1904. From this patent, introduced in evidence, it appears that the same was issued to such heirs upon the claim of the heirs of said John Kelly having been duly established and consummated in conformity with the law. The husband, William Gottbreht, testified that he made an agreement with his wife, Mary Gottbreht, to pay the obligations of the deceased, and to receive a deed from her of this land; that she made such deed. The deed, however, has been lost, and was never recorded. He further testified that he went into possession of this land after the death of the entryman, and has farmed or rented it ever since. He also testified that he has paid the taxes on such land ever since 1903. Pursuant to the will, payment was made annually to the plaintiffs of the interest, at 10 per cent., upon the bequests of $50, amounting to $10. Finally, in January, 1917, the bequest, amounting to $110, including interest, was paid. In December, 1916, this defendant, the husband, sent quitclaim deeds covering this land for execution to each of the plaintiffs. As the plaintiff Loretta Erhart testified, she and her sister then first knew about this real estate. The plaintiffs, at the time of the trial, were aged 23 and 25 years, respectively; they had received the bequests, interest, and principal mostly through their mother, being minors for many years after the decease of the entryman. Both the mother and the daughter, the plaintiff Loretta Erhart, testify that they knew nothing about this homestead; that the money for the bequests was received under the thought that it related to personal property, under the terms of the will.

This action, accordingly, in March, 1918, was instituted by the plaintiffs, as heirs, to quiet title in their respective undivided one-sixth interests in the land. A cause of action was also interposed for the value of the use and occupation of the land as against the defendant Mary Gottbreht. The defendant Wm. Gottbreht interposed an answer, setting up title by reason of the will, the conveyance from his wife, and his payment of the taxes and occupancy of the premises adversely for over 10 years. The defendant Mary Gottbreht in her answer alleges also the will and the sale of the land to her husband. Upon these pleadings the issues were framed. In the trial court findings were made quieting title in fee in the defendant Wm. Gottbreht. From the judgment rendered thereupon the plaintiffs have appealed, and demand in this court a trial de novo.

Christianson, C. J., and Birdzell, J., dissenting.

Verret & Stormon, of Rolla, and J. A. Capwell and C. S. Aldrich, both of Elmwood, Neb., for appellants.

L. D. Gooler, of Rolla, and Cuthbert & Smythe, of Devils Lake, for respondents.

BRONSON, J. (after stating the facts as above).

The plaintiffs, the appellants herein, contend that the trial court had not original jurisdiction in the probating of a will or in receiving the proof thereof as a last will; that such unprobated will was not color of title upon which might be predicated adverse possession under the statute; that no adverse possession has been shown in the record as against these plaintiffs as heirs.

The respondents contend that proof of the lost will was used only for the purpose of establishing color of title; that otherwise it is not denied that a will must be probated. It is contended, however, that the plaintiffs were estopped by receiving the bequests so made; that the record discloses a title established through adverse possession and the payment of taxes under color of title, pursuant to section 5471, C. L. 1913.

The consideration of two legal questions presented upon this record determine the issues and the contentions made, viz.:

1. The nature of the title conveyed by the patent.

2. The adverse possession shown.

[1] 1. Nature of Title.-It is apparent that when the entryman died he did not possess the title to land involved. He then possessed such rights as an entryman has before final proof. 32 Cyc. 833; 8 Fed. St. Ann. (2d Ed.) 562. After his decease his heirs or devisees may complete the statutory requirements and may make final proof. Section 2291, U. S. Rev. Stat.; 37 Stat. L. 132; 8 Fed. St. Ann. (2d Ed.) 558 (U. S. Comp. St. § 4532). In making such final proof, such heirs or devisees take directly from the government as special purchasers or donees, and not by reason of their right in the estate of the deceased. Martyn v. Olson, 28 N. D. 317, 148 N. W. 834, L. R. A. 1915B, 681;Martin v. Yager, 30 N. D. 577, 582, 153 N. W. 286. On the face of the patent in this case, not only was proof made, evidently, in behalf of the heirs of the deceased entryman, but the patent, in fact, was issued to such heirs.

This patent, on its face, carried the title to the heirs of such entryman, not to the defendant Wm. Gottbreht or to the defendant Mary Gottbreht, excepting her interest as heir therein. 8 Fed. St. Ann. (2d Ed.) 566. The will accordingly, even though valid and duly probated, did not have the effect of transferring from the deceased entryman his title in the premises to the devisee thereof. Gjerstadengen et al. v. Van Duzen, 7 N. D. 612, 76 N. W. 233, 66 Am. St. Rep. 679.

Accordingly, upon the issuance of this patent under which title is claimed, either directly or through color of title, by all of the parties to this proceeding, the title was vested in the heirs of the deceased entryman. The plaintiffs thereupon had each an undivided one-sixth interest in fee in such land; the defendant Mary Gottbreht an undivided one-third interest therein. The heirs of such deceased entryman thereupon became and were cotenants in such land. 32 Cyc. 834, 1034.

[2] 2. The Adverse Possession.-It is deemed wholly immaterial to consider whether the claimed will constituted color of title or not. The only claim made by the respondents is that it does constitute color of title. Clearly, the title of the defendant William Gottbreht (as claimed) rests wholly, not only upon proper proof of color of title, but also upon the fundamental requisites necessary to establish title by adverse possession under the statutory provisions, which requires an actual, open, adverse and undisputed possession of land under color of title for a period of ten years, with payment of all taxes and assessments legally levied thereon. Section 5471, C. L. 1913. We are clearly of the opinion that the plaintiffs are not estopped to deny either the validity of the will as title or color of title, or the sufficiency of the claimed acts of adverse possession. Gjerstadengen v. Hartzell, 9 N. D. 269, 274, 83 N. W. 230, 81 Am. St. Rep. 575. Nothing in the record is disclosed to show knowledge on the part of the plaintiffs, direct or indirect, concerning their rights in this homestead, or...