Watkins v. Winings

• Decision Date: 17 June 1885
• Citation: 102 Ind. 330,1 N.E. 638
• Parties: Watkins and others v. Winings.
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

102 Ind. 330

1 N.E. 638

Watkins and others

v.Winings.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

Filed June 17, 1885.

Appeal from Henry circuit court.

Brown & Brown, for appellants.

Elliott, J.

This is an action to recover possession of land and to quiet title, instituted by the appellee. The facts are substantially these: In 1867 the firm of Forkner & Winings, composed of Micajah Forkner and Samuel Winings, became the owner of the lot in controversy. In 1871 Robert and Franklin Newcom obtained judgment against Micajah Forkner on a note executed by him for $165. On this judgment Forkner's interest was sold on the twenty-eighth day of May, 1881, and bought by the appellee, and in September, 1882, she obtained a quitclaim deed from the heirs of Joseph Winings, deceased. Joseph Winings obtained title to the lot from Samuel Winings in 1874. Taxes accumulated upon the lot, and on the tenth day of February, 1875, it was sold to Wilson Winings, who received a deed from the auditor in February, 1877. The appellants are the heirs of John J. Watkins, who purchased at a sale made upon a decree obtained by Wilson Winings, decreeing a lien in his favor for taxes paid by him.

The appellants offered in evidence the papers and record in a suit brought by Wilson Winings against Benjamin F. Wisehart, and offered also the deed executed by the sheriff upon the decree. We have not been favored with any brief from the appellee, and our unaided investigation has not enabled us to find any ground upon which this ruling can be sustained. The appellants had a right to show the title by which they were in possession. The right to show title is one thing, and the effect of the title shown quite another. Color of title may arise from a void deed, yet it will protect the party in possession under it from being treated as a mere trespasser. The appellants ought to have been permitted to give their deed from the sheriff in evidence and, as showing its foundation, the record of the suit on which was rendered the decree upon which the sale was made. It is true that the judgment did not bind the appellee, for neither she nor her grantors were parties to the action; but, while this is true, it is also true that the sheriff's deed gave color of title, and conferred the right to prove the foundation upon which it rested. But there is still another, and perhaps stronger, reason why the evidence should have been admitted. The sale for taxes, although void, conferred color of title, and...