Waddell v. School Dist. No. 2 of Yellowstone County
| Decision Date | 06 July 1925 |
| Docket Number | 5729. |
| Citation | 238 P. 884,74 Mont. 91 |
| Parties | WADDELL v. SCHOOL DIST. NO. 2 OF YELLOWSTONE COUNTY. |
| Court | Montana Supreme Court |
Appeal from District Court, Yellowstone County; Robert C. Stong Judge.
Action by Charles A. Waddell against School District No. 2 of Yellowstone County. Judgment for defendant and plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded with directions.
Myers & Huntington, of Billings, for appellant.
John B Tansil and George S. Smith, both of Billings, for respondent.
In this action the plaintiff, under claim of ownership, seeks to obtain the possession of about two-fifths of an acre of land in Yellowstone county, occupied by the defendant. The complaint is in two counts, the first being in ejectment, and the second in equity, to enjoin the defendant from occupying or using the premises involved. The allegations of the plaintiff's complaint are denied generally by the answer and, additionally, adverse possession and estoppel are affirmatively pleaded. Issue was joined by the plaintiff's reply to the answer, and the cause was tried to the court without a jury. The court made its findings of fact and conclusions of law against the plaintiff and in favor of the defendant, upon which judgment was regularly entered. Plaintiff having been denied a new trial, this appeal is taken from the judgment.
The plaintiff specifies 20 assignments of error. However, in view of the court's findings of facts and the declaration made by counsel for the defendant on the oral argument of this appeal, that, in order to sustain the judgment reliance is placed entirely upon the rule of equitable estoppel, we need go no further than to determine whether the findings made by the court are sufficient to uphold the judgment on that theory.
There is little conflict in the evidence, and therefrom it appears that one Edwin M. Newman, the plaintiff's predecessor in interest, owned 10 acres of land located near the city of Billings. In the year 1899, by parol, he gave the trustees of school district No. 3, a rural school district, permission without consideration, to erect a schoolhouse on a portion of his land and to utilize about 1 acre of the same for school purposes, which they did. At that time Newman was himself a member of the board of school trustees with whom he dealt. Later, in 1911, while Newman was yet a member of the board of school trustees, without any consideration or further agreement or understanding, the school trustees removed the old schoolhouse and erected a new school building on the original site, at a cost of approximately $2,700, which now stands there. It is a frame structure built upon a cement foundation. About the year 1917, school district No. 3 was absorbed and taken in as a part and portion of school district No. 2, comprising the city of Billings and considerable adjoining territory, and thereupon school district No. 3 ceased to exist. Since then the defendant has utilized the schoolhouse mentioned, and about two-fifths of an acre of inclosed land on a portion of which the schoolhouse is erected, for school purposes, school being there continuously conducted from the time the building was erected, except during the years 1921 to 1924, when it was found advantageous by the school trustees to close it up and make other provision for the school children in the vicinity. In January, 1924, it was ordered reopened by the board of school trustees, and school has since been therein conducted. During the time the school building was closed the desks, seats and other furniture were removed from their usual place in order to make use of the schoolroom for dancing.
On April 24, 1922, the plaintiff entered into a contract with one Edwin M. Newman for the purchase of the 10 acres of land owned by the latter, including the tract in controversy, as to which the contract recites that the land is to be conveyed to the plaintiff, free of all incumbrances "except such rights, if any, as school district No. 3 of Yellowstone county may have to said premises, or any part thereof for school purposes."
After making such contract for the purchase of the entire 10-acre tract from Newman, the plaintiff, in the spring of 1922, built thereon a dwelling house adjacent to the schoolhouse and premises involved, and with his family moved into such dwelling and now occupies it as his home. He took possession of the entire 10-acre tract, and now asserts title to the same and is in possession thereof, save as prevented by the occupancy of the defendant of the tract in controversy. After moving upon the land he tore down the fence inclosing the schoolhouse and the outhouses connected therewith. School was not then being conducted in the school building, but it was used from time to time by people in the neighborhood for the holding of dances, over the plaintiff's objections and to the great annoyance of his family and himself. All state and county taxes upon the entire tract have at all times been paid by the plaintiff and his predecessor in interest. After the plaintiff and his family moved onto the land, the plaintiff notified the defendant in writing that its license to occupy the tract involved for school purposes was revoked, and requested that the school building be removed therefrom so soon as reasonably possible.
As findings of fact Nos. 2, 3, and 4, the court found, in substance, that in the year 1900 the plaintiff's predecessor in interest, Edwin M. Newman, then being one of the school trustees of school district No. 3, and the owner of the land in controversy, orally granted permission to the school trustees to occupy and use the tract involved for school purposes, such permission to continue so long as the district wished to utilize it for school purposes, and that in pursuance thereof the school district took immediate possession and erected a schoolhouse thereon; that thereafter, in the year 1911, the original school building being too small for the purposes of the district, it was removed, and a new building, substantial in construction, erected on the site of the old one; that thereupon the tract of land in controversy was by the school trustees inclosed by a substantial wooden fence, which remained in place until removed by the plaintiff in 1922; that at the time when the new school building was constructed Edwin M. Newman still continued to be the owner of the land, and one of the school trustees of the district, and offered no objection to its erection or to the expenditure of school funds for that purpose.
It was further found by the court that the defendant and its predecessor in interest had at all times since the construction of a wooden fence inclosing the tract in dispute, from the year 1911, been in open and uninterrupted adverse possession thereof against the plaintiff and his predecessor in interest; and that there is a specific reservation of the parcel of land involved under the...
To continue reading
Request your trial