Talbott v. Woodford

• Decision Date: 08 December 1900
• Court: West Virginia Supreme Court
• Parties: TALBOTT. v. WOODFORD et al.

48 W.Va. 449
37 S.E. 580

TALBOTT.
v.
WOODFORD et al.

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

Dec. 8, 1900.

CO-TENANTS—OUSTER—ADVERSE POSSESSION —RUNNING OF STATUTE—PLEADING —REVIEW ON APPEAL.

1. Acts of exclusive ownership by one of two co-tenants, such as the open sale, conveyance, and delivery of possession thereunder of the whole subject-matter, amount to a complete ouster of the other co-tenant, and unless he brings suit within 10 years thereafter his right of recovery will be barred by the statute of limitations.

2. If, after the right of action has accrued and the statute of limitations has begun to run, such ousted co-tenant dies, leaving infant heirs, the statute continues to run, and their rights are barred, notwithstanding their disability, in the same number of years as would bar their ancestor. They do not inherit the land, but a mere limited right of action, with days already numbered; and, unless they or their friends take the necessary legal steps to save the same within the period fixed by statute, their, right of action is forever lost.

3. A bill carefully drawn may show facts sufficient to sustain the bar of the statute of limitations.

4. Incompetent and inadmissible testimony will not reverse a decree when the uncontroverted facts in the bill are sufficient to sustain it.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Appeal from circuit court, Barbour county, John Homer Holt, Judge.

Bill by Emma C. Talbott against John F. Woodford and others. Decree for defendants. Plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

J. Hop Woods, for appellant.

W. T. Ice, for appellees.

DENT, J. Emma C. Talbott complains of a decree of the circuit court of Barbour county dismissing a bill in chancery filed by her against John F. Woodford et al. The facts in the case, as appears from the competent and incompetent evidence, are as follows, to wit: By deed dated the 16th day of October, 1876, Henson L. Stout conveyed to John F. Woodford and D. D. Campbell, father of plaintiff, who is his only heir at law, the tract of land in controversy, in consideration of $520. Campbell afterwards agreed that Woodford should pay the purchase money and keep the land, but did not make any deed therefor, but gave Woodford a receipt for $10, consideration for the release of his bargain, which was lost. Woodford took possession of the land, and Campbell on the 10th day of April, 1877, left the state. The last that was heard of him was in the year 1881, in Texas. In the year 18S5 Woodford sold and conveyed the land to...