Stuart v. Lowry

• Decision Date: 15 March 1892
• Citation: 49 Minn. 91,51 N.W. 662
• Parties: STUART v LOWRY.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

49 Minn. 91

51 N.W. 662

STUARTvLOWRY.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

March 15, 1892.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

1. In an action under the statute to determine an adverse claim to real estate the defendant is called upon to disclose by his answer the nature of his claim or title, which thereupon becomes the subject of adjudication. If he sets up a legal title, his proof must be confined to a claim of that character. If the claim is an equitable one, equitable rules and principles must govern.

2. Under an averment of ownership in fee, he will not be permitted to show on the trial that he has succeeded to an equitable title or interest, or to reach property held in trust.

Appeal from district court, Hennepin county; HOOKER, Judge.

Action by David A. Stuart against Thomas Lowry to determine an adverse claim to certain land. Judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

E. E. Cooley and W. E. Akers, for appellant.

Koon, Whelan & Bennett, for respondent.

VANDERBURGH, J.

Upon the former appeal in this case, (42 Minn. 473,44 N. W. Rep. 532,) it was determined that the representations of Mayo, plaintiff's grantor, to defendant, constituting the basis of an estoppel against Mayo from setting up any claim to the land in controversy, were insufficient to bar plaintiff's claim of title to the land under his deed from Mayo, acquired before the alleged representations were acted on. This action is brought by the plaintiff under the statute alleging ownership and possession to determine the adverse claim of defendant to the quarter section of land in controversy. The defendant was called upon to disclose by his answer the nature of his claim, which would thereupon become the subject of adjudication. But the answer simply denies plaintiff's title and possession, and alleges that the defendant “is the owner in fee of said land, and of the whole thereof, and that plaintiff's pretended estate, interest, and title thereto are fraudulent, and should be set aside and annulled.” The most that can be said of the general allegation of title by defendant is that he has the legal title to the whole tract. The answer clearly confined the defendant to proof of a legal title. It is not necessary for the plaintiff, in his complaint, to anticipate or state the nature of the adverse claim. It is for the defendant to disclose the nature of his claim in his answer, and thereupon a case is presented for the determination of the court, upon the pleadings and proofs, as to the validity of such claim as against the plaintiff. Plaintiff will be entitled to judgment upon the bare proof of actual possession, unless the defendant is able to establish the title or claim set forth in his answer. “If his claim rests upon a legal title to the property, the sole question for determination is as to the sufficiency of such title, as against the plaintiff's possession, under the rules of law applicable to questions of that character. If the claim is an equitable one, equitable principles and rules must govern in its determination; and in settling the rights of the parties in respect thereto the court may exercise its equity powers in granting whatever relief the nature of the case, upon the facts, may require, upon such terms and conditions as may be necessary to do complete justice.” Barber v. Evans, 27 Minn. 93, 6 N. W. Rep. 445. And in Walton v. Perkins, 28 Minn. 415, 10 N. W. Rep. 424, it is...