Watters v. Connelly
| Decision Date | 13 July 1882 |
| Citation | 13 N.W. 82,59 Iowa 217 |
| Parties | WATTERS AND OTHERS v. CONNELLY AND OTHERS. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from Webster district court.
Action to foreclose a mortgage. There was a decree of foreclosure as to part of the land, and the petition as to the other part was, by the decree, in effect dismissed. The plaintiffs appeal. The facts of the case appear in the opinion.
J. F. Duncombe, for appellants.
M. D. O'Connell, for appellees.
1. The mortgage, which is the foundation of the action, was executed January 2, 1877, by Daniel O. Connelly and Patrick Connelly, with their wives, and conveyed the S. 1/2 of section 19, township 89 N., range 29 W., and the E. 1/2 of section 25, township 89 N., range 39 W. The defendants James Connelly and his wife in their answer allege that in June, 1868, Daniel O. Connelly, the father of James, being indebted to him for services of himself for five years, and for the services of his wife for one year, sold to him and his wife the E. 1/2 of section 25, above described, in payment of this indebtedness. No deed or other writing witnessing the sale was executed, but the defendant James at once took possession of the land, a house having been built thereon by his father, which he occupied with his family as his home, and paid taxes on the land from 1868 until the present time. He claims that at the time the mortgage was executed he was the owner of the land, of which his possession gave notice to the world. The plaintiffs, in reply to the answer of defendants James and his wife, deny their interest in and claim to the land, and aver that it was the property of the father, Daniel O. Connelly. They further allege that the mortgage which plaintiffs seek to foreclose was given for money loaned by them, which was applied to the payment of a mortgage executed by Daniel O. and Patrick Connelly to the Ætna Life Insurance Company upon the land in question, and to the satisfaction of several judgments against James, which were liens upon the land. Plaintiffs claim that, by reason of these facts and transactions, defendants James and his wife are estopped to up set any interest or title they may hold in and to the land against plaintiff's mortgage. By the decree rendered in the court below the mortgage was foreclosed as to the S. 1/2 of section 19, and foreclosure was refused as to the land claimed by the defendants James Connelly and his wife. Certain defences were pleaded by the defendants other than James and wife, which need not be here further noticed, as no appeal was taken in that branch of the case. We are only required to determine whether the evidence and the law support the decree of the districtcourt discharging the land claimed by James Connelly and wife from the lien of the mortgage.
2. We think the evidence satisfactorily establishes a sale of the land in question in 1868 to James by his father. James testifies positively to such sale, and his evidence is corroborated by the testimony of his wife and a brother-in-law, Fitzpatrick. The same witnesses testify that James had served his father for about seven years after he had attained his majority, and his wife, after his marriage, had rendered service to the father for one year. The land was given by the father in payment for their services. In 1868 James and his wife went into possession of the land, and afterwards used and occupied it as their own property. They paid the taxes upon the land, and plowed about 120 acres, and made other improvements thereon. The sale of the land, and the possession thereunder by James, we think is clearly shown. Their possession and cultivation of the land was sufficient to put the plaintiffs in this case upon inquiry, and impart notice of the interest in and equitable title to the land held by James. This conclusion is based upon elementary principles of the law. See 4 Kent, Comm. 179 et seq.; Wade, Notice, §§ 273, 279; 2 Lead. Cas. in Eq. (Am. Notes,) 165. The inquiry thus suggested would have revealed to the plaintiff the equitable title held by James Connelly to the land.
3. We are required in the next place to determine the extent of the interest of which the possession of James gave notice, or in other words the quantity of land which he can hold free from the mortgage. The half section of land in controversy was not wholly enclosed by fences, and was not wholly cultivated. About 120 acres were plowed; the remainder was unbroken prairie. The cultivated land was partly upon each quarter section, but probably it did not extend to each forty of the tract. Plaintiff's counsel insist that if defendant's possession of the land imparted notice of his equities, they extended no further than to cover the land in actual cultivation.
It is a well-settled rule, applicable to the question of adverse possession of lands, when the protection of the statute of limitations is invoked, that actual possession of a part is legal possession of the whole of a tract covered by the title under which the actual possession of the part is taken, and that possession of the part will impart notice of claim to the whole tract. Langworthy v. Myers, 4 Iowa, 18; 2 Washb. Real Prop. p. 497, § 36; p. 500, § 44, and notes; Anderson v. Darley, 1 Nott & McC. 369;Efert v. Reed, Id. 374; Bailey v. Carleton, 12 N. H. 9;Little v. Megguire, 2 Me. 176; Cluggage v. Duncan, 1 Serg. & R. 111.
The reasons which support this rule require us to apply it to the case of notice of an equitable title imparted by possession. When the question is one of adverse possession, occupancy of a part of the land will carry the possession to the whole tract, for the reason that the possession is presumed to be as broad as the claim of title. No other rule would be just and equitable in this country, where it often happens that the whole of a tract is not reduced to actual possession by enclosure and cultivation. Besides, the lands being subdivided by government surveys,--the unit of such subdivision being the section, (see Martin v. Cole, 38 Iowa, 141,)--claims of title are usually limited in extent by such surveys. The quantity of land owned by each citizen is not uniform. It may be the unit of the government survey, a section of 640 acres, or the one-sixteenth of a section--40 acres. But, whatever be the quantity, it usually conforms to some government subdivision. Now, the notice of his equity imparted by the possession of the land-owner who holds no recorded title, ought to extend to his claim as limited by the government survey. Indeed, we think, in our own state no one would entertain the thought that a citizen who has commenced improvement of a farm by breaking a few acres of prairie would limit his claim to the land he actually reduced to cultivation or enclosed with a fence. It would, in such a case, be understood that his claim extended to a government subdivision, and the personput on inquiry by his possession would seek of him information as to its extent.
It cannot be doubted that a possession sufficient to impart notice of an equity may be of such a nature as would suffice to constitute adverse possession. Adverse possesion of a part, as we have seen, is construed to extend to and cover the entire tract claimed by the possession. Under these cases possession of part imparts notice of the claim to the whole tract covered by the equity under which the land is held.
4. Counsel for plaintiffs insist that defendants are estopped to set up their claim to the land for the reason that the money borrowed upon the faith of the mortgage was appropriated to the payment of another mortgage executed by Daniel O. Connelly upon the land, and to the payment of certain judgments against the defendant James. It is shown that James had no knowledge of the execution of the mortgage just spoken of, and it is not shown that the judgments were rendered for debts which he owed as principal. In all of them, we believe, his father or Patrick Connelly, or both, were also defendants. It was the purpose, in paying the judgments, to discharge the liens standing against Daniel O. and Patrick Connelly. It is shown that James had...
To continue reading
Request your trial