York v. James

• Court: Wyoming Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: RINER, Justice.
• Citation: York v. James, 62 Wyo. 184, 165 P.2d 109 (Wyo. 1946)
• Decision Date: 15 January 1946
• Docket Number: 2334
• Parties: LESTER A. YORK, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. JOHN P. JAMES, Defendant and Respondent

165 P.2d 109

62 Wyo. 184

LESTER A. YORK, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. JOHN P. JAMES, Defendant and Respondent

No. 2334

Supreme Court of Wyoming

January 15, 1946

APPEAL from District Court, Niobrara County; HARRY P. ILSLEY, Judge.

Action by Lester A. York against John P. James to quiet title to certain lands. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals.

Reversed with instructions.

For the plaintiff and appellant the cause was submitted upon the brief and also oral argument of William G. Watt of Lusk Wyoming, and Arthur H. Laws of Denver, Colorado.

POINTS OF COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT

The liquidation of a pre-existing debt is sufficient valuable consideration to support a deed. 16 A. J. 474; 6 Thompson on Real Property, Perm. Ed. 1940, Sec. 3221, P. 383; Volume 2 Tiffany on Real Property (2nd Ed.) P. 2249; Dilts, et al v. Mecham, et al., 48 Wyo. 352, 45 P.2d 920; Hallett v. Alexander, 50 Colo. 37 at 42, 114 P. 490; Knox v McFarran, 4 Colo. 586.

When a party whose deed is recorded first is a bona fide purchaser, it would make no difference what equities the other party shows, although his deed be prior in date.

But where the other party under the earlier dated deed has little or no equity, and where he has paid a ridiculous small sum as consideration for his deed, and he being in the relation of attorney and counsellor to the grantor, the question of equities may well be considered by the court. Story's Equity Juris. 14th Ed. Vol. 1, Pg. 75.

It is a fundamental principle of law that all conveyances of property by a client to his attorney are presumptively fraudulent and at the very least are to be regarded with considerable suspicion. 7 C. J. S. Sec. 128 P. 969.

In a suit to quiet title it is well settled that the plaintiff ordinarily has the burden of providing the facts alleged on which his right to judgment is grounded and he must establish that he himself has a perfect legal or equitable title regardless of whether defendant's title is valid or invalid, since plaintiff must recover on the strength of his own title and not on the weakness of his adversary's. Davis, et al. v. Convention 45 Wyo. 148, P. 154.

For the defendant and respondent the cause was submitted upon the brief of Thomas O. Miller of Lusk, Wyoming, and oral argument of John P. James, pro se of Denver, Colorado.

POINTS OF COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT

A debt is a certain sum of money that is owing from one person to another. Little v. Dryer, 27 N.E. 905-906.

A debt is a sum of money due from one person to another. Anthony v. Savage, 5 P. 545 (Utah).

A debt is defined as a sum of money due upon a contract by certain fixed and express agreement. It is also a sum of money either fixed or readily calculable. Clinton May Co. v. Beacon, D. C. Pa. 264 F. 228, 229.

In this case, the District Court has found that plaintiff was not a purchaser in good faith, for valuable consideration and without notice, and in such cases the Supreme Court has uniformly held that the findings of the trial court will not be disturbed on appeal. Slothower v. Hunter, et al., 15 Wyo. 189; Hunt v. City of Cheyenne, 26 Wyo. 168; Billinger & Co. v. Weiss, 27 Wyo. 269; McFadden v. French, et al., 29 Wyo. 408; Boatman, et al. v. Andre, 44 Wyo. 367.

Love and affection, while sufficient between parties, is insufficient to constitute one a purchaser for value. 66 C. J. Sec. 925.

A bona fide purchaser is one who, at the time of his purchase, advances a new consideration, surrenders some security or does some act which leaves him in a worse position if his purchase should be set aside, and purchaser in honest belief that his vendor had a right to sell, without notice, actual or constructive, of any adverse rights, interests or equities of others in and to the property sold. Yale Oil Co. v. Sedlacek, 43 P. 2d 887, 890.

To entitle a subsequent vendee to have a prior unrecorded conveyance postponed to his subsequent conveyance, it must appear, first, that he was a bona fide purchaser, that he purchased without notice actual or constructive, of the title of the prior vendee. It must appear that the purchase money was bona fide and truly made. Thompson, Real Property Vol. 8, Sec. 4475.

A deed from one not shown to have title to the land is not sufficient proof of title to sustain a suit to quiet title. Sanders v. Boone, 154 Ark. 237, 242 S.W. 66, 32 A. L. R. 461.

In a suit to quiet title, it is well settled that the plaintiff ordinarily has the burden of proving the facts alleged, on which his right to judgment is grounded, and he must establish that he, himself, has a perfect legal or equitable title, regardless of whether defendant's title is valid or invalid, since plaintiff must recover on the strength of his own title and not on the weakness of his adversary's. Davis, et al. v. Convention, 45 Wyo. 154, 16 P. 2d 48; Simmons v. Ramsbottom, 51 Wyo. 419, 68, P. 2d, 153; Holliday v. Templin, 56 Wyo. 94, 103 P. 2d 408; Rue v. Merrill, 42 Wyo. 511, 297 P. 2d. 379.

RINER, Justice. BLUME, C. J., and KIMBALL, J., concur.

OPINION

RINER, Justice.

This is the second appearance in this court of this case. The parties may be conveniently mentioned herein as "plaintiff" or "defendant" or by their respective surnames. As indicated in the previous opinion (York vs. James, 60 Wyo. 222, 148 P.2d 596), the action was one to quiet title brought by York against James relative to certain lands situate in Niobrara County, Wyoming, and the judgment of the district court reviewed in that opinion had been rendered in favor of the plaintiff. In the record now before us it appears that James, the defendant, was successful and from the judgment in his favor York is now the appellant.

By the record first made in this case it appeared that the plaintiff did not plead or prove that he had given a valuable consideration for the deed to the property involved in the lawsuit and upon which he relied to establish his title thereto but simply based his right to relief upon the mere recital therein of the receipt by the grantor of "One Dollar and other good and valuable considerations". Under the provisions of § 97-135, W. R. S. 1931, we held that this proof was insufficient under the situation then presented by the record made on the first trial and discussed in the opinion aforesaid. The judgment was accordingly reversed and a new trial ordered. We did not undertake to foreclose all other questions which might arise in the case upon retrial.

The pleadings of the parties as now appearing in the present record are the same in substance as those described in our former opinion except that allegations of want of notice of the earlier deed to James and that for a valuable consideration York became the owner of the property in question now are set forth in plaintiff's behalf. It will not, therefore, be necessary herein to restate the substance of the pleadings.

Additional circumstances and contentions of the parties, however, do appear before us now and for that reason it is deemed appropriate to state anew what facts are required to be considered in properly disposing of the case.

The 320 acres of homesteaded real estate which is the subject of this controversy is located in Niobrara County, Wyoming, as above stated. February 18, 1918, a United States Patent for this land was issued to one James W. Shaner which was duly recorded in said county on the 25th of March, following. Shaner and his wife, Lena, resided upon and farmed at least a portion of this property from about 1914 or 1915, until the year 1928 when they removed to Denver, Colorado. In March, 1918, the Shaners mortgaged this land to Petters and Company of Minneapolis, Minnesota, for $ 1,000.00. This mortgage was subsequently released. Thereafter and on November 1, 1923, the land was again mortgaged by James Shaner and wife to Mary Payette for $ 700.00. This mortgage was also subsequently released. A warranty deed from J. W. Shaner appears to transfer title to this property to Lena Shaner, his wife, the instrument being dated August 8, 1924, and recorded July 18, 1927.

Before her marriage Lena Shaner lived with her sister, Margretha York, for many years. Another sister, Mary Payette, has already been mentioned above. Margretha York was the mother of the plaintiff herein, Lester A. York, and Lena Shaner was, of course, his aunt. It seems there was a third married sister, a Mrs. Lizzie Klemen, who lived in Nebraska.

It appears that during the period of residence of the Shaners upon the land in controversy, as stated above, the plaintiff aided them in many substantial ways. He sent them several hundred dollars to purchase the necessary building material and to pay for the labor of having a home built on the place. He also sent them money to pay the taxes on this property and for food, clothing, as well as for threshing and other expenses they had need of during those years they lived in Niobrara County. For eight or nine years also he sent his aunt railroad fare to come to Denver and return to her home in Wyoming so that she could spend the colder winter months in that city. He also supplied her with things she needed while in Denver. He does not seem to have kept an exact or any particular account of the various sums of money he expended for the Shaners or have demanded of them that they repay the money he thus advanced for their benefit. At any rate, the sums thus turned over to them were never repaid to him by his aunt or her husband.

When the Shaners came to live in Denver, York built an addition to his mother's home in that city to take care of them until they could arrange to move to some other place and they lived there some considerable time.

The defendant, James, was an attorney at law in Denver and prior to July 14th, or 15th, 1...