Strunks Lane & Jellico Etc. v. Anderson
| Decision Date | 02 May 1944 |
| Citation | 297 Ky. 578 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky |
| Parties | Strunks Lane & Jellico Mountain Coal & Coke Co. v. Anderson et al. |
1. Quieting Title. — In quiet title suit, chancellor erred in holding that a defendant was owner of tract containing less than one acre and correctly concluded that palintiff was owner of 14 1/2-acre tract under evidence which traced plaintiff's title to a patent from the commonwealth registered in 1857.
2. Improvements. — A bona fide purchaser of land, believing himself to have good title, is entitled to compensation from real owner for improvements made upon the land, to extent that such improvements enhanced value of the land, and to a lien upon land improved to secure payment of such recovery.
3. Improvements. — Evidence showed that bona fide purchaser of land placed improvements thereon in good faith, entitling him to recover for such improvements from real owner.
4. Appeal and Error. — The real owner of land could not complain because judgment rendered for improvements placed upon land by bona fide purchaser was in favor of husband and wife jointly, where the owner owed the money and satisfaction would be accorded upon payment to either one.
5. Improvements. — A purchaser of land with notice of claim of superior title in others was not entitled to recover for improvements made thereafter, since they were made at purchaser's own risk.
6. Public Lands. — In quiet title suit, defendants who traced their title to a patent from the commonwealth issued in 1856 were properly awarded judgment on ground that their title was superior to plaintiff's title which was traced to a junior patent issued in 1857.
7. Adverse Possession. — In quiet title suit, evidence that defendant fenced in disputed property for more than 28 years and that such property was not part of land fenced with plaintiff's permission, and that defendant for such period of time claimed the land ad versely, openly, notoriously, and continuously, and used it for general farming purposes, established his title by adverse possession.
Appeal from McCreary Circuit Court.
W.N. Flippin for appellant.
George W. Stephens and J.E. Stephens for appellees.
Before Flem D. Sampson, Judge.
Affirming in part and reversing in part.
The opinion on the first appeal appears under the same style in 276 Ky. 576, 124 S.W. 2d 779, to which the reader is referred for a statement of the controversy involved. Because we considered the evidence for all the parties to be too vague and uncertain for final determination, the case was remanded with directions that the parties be given an opportunity to introduce further evidence, which was done. The titles to several tracts of land are involved, each of which is separately claimed by the various appellees, and all of which are claimed by appellant. The tract claimed by Mrs. General Strunk and the unknown heirs at law of General Strunk, deceased, is not involved on this appeal; both parties conceding the judgment to be correct in so far as it affects the property in controversy between them. We are asked to determine the soundness of the Chancellor's decree in respect to two tracts of land claimed by Cinda Anderson; one tract claimed by Nellie E. Anderson; one tract claimed by Cal Strunk; and one tract claimed by L.C. Anderson, the latter and his wife having been made parties defendant after remand of the case after the first appeal.
Upon remand of the case, Cinda Anderson and her husband, J.C. Anderson, filed an amended answer, in which they prayed recovery for improvements placed upon the land claimed by them, in the event it should be determined that they were not the owners thereof. A similar pleading was filed by Nellie Anderson and her husband, B.H. Anderson. L.C. Anderson, the newly named defendant, filed answer setting up claim to one and one-half acres of land within the exterior boundaries of the land claimed by appellant, by reason of purchase from his mother, Cinda Anderson, and which is a part of the fourteen and one-half acre tract originally claimed by the latter. He pleaded, and proved, that he had placed improvements on the land claimed by him, and asked that he be permitted to recover for such improvements in the event it should be determined that he does not have title to the land.
The Chancellor adjudged Cinda Anderson to be the owner, and entitled to the possession, of a tract of land containing less than one acre, declaring in the judgment that appellant admitted the Andersons' ownership of this small boundary. We see nothing in the record to justify the conclusion that appellant admits such ownership. The claim of ownership was denied by the pleadings, and the same proof was offered in respect to this tract as was offered in respect to the fourteen and one-half acre tract it was adjudged by the Chancellor is owned by appellant. Both tracts were claimed by the Andersons by virtue of a deed from L.E. Bryant and his wife, and no additional evidence was offered in support of their title to the property than was before this court on the original appeal, and which was held to be insufficient to support the claim of the Andersons. On the other hand, appellant, on return of the case, traced its title to a patent from the Commonwealth registered in December, 1857. It is obvious that the court erred in concluding Cinda Anderson was the owner of the tract of land containing less than one acre, and that he correctly concluded that appellant was the owner of the fourteen and one-half acre tract claimed by her and her son, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial