페이지 이미지
PDF
ePub

(207 Ala. 353, 92 So. 647.) that where a cotenant conveys to a the fee in the whole. Under that stranger to the title by a conveyance deed he entered and in the absence appropriate in form to transfer an of anything shown to the contrary, estate in severalty, and the grantee he is presumed to have entered unenters into exclusive possession of der a claim of right to the fee in the the property thereunder as a claim whole. It is not a case where a tenant in severalty, this is an ouster of ant in common, being or entering the other cotenants, of which they into possession as such, afterwards must take notice, and which, if suffi- attempts to claim that his occupation ciently long continued, bars them was adverse to his cotenant. Dyer of all right to the property.

did not enter as a tenant in common. The author's note then cites nu- From the very first he is presumed merous decisions, among them to have claimed under his deed, and Fielder v. Childs, 73 Ala. 567. See there is nothing to show that he or also 2 C. J. 185.

his successors ever acknowledged or The court below evidently pro- ever supposed that the interest ceeded upon the theory that appel- thereby conveyed was anything othlant by the execution of the mort- er than as it appeared upon the face gage and foreclosure deeds had be- of the deed.” come a tenant in common with the The conveyances relied upon by cotenants of Celeste Childress, and appellant were duly recorded, and that the evidence was insufficient to his possession was open and notorishow an ouster of his joint owners. ous (see note to Joyce v. Dyer, Miller V. Vizzard Invest. Co. 195 supra, p. 614), and that constituted Ala. 467, 70 So. 639. But this is an color of title so as to extend the poserroneous view. The appellant did session to the entire tract. not become, nor did he enter into While in this case the testimony possession as, a tenant in common

was taken orally before the court, with the joint owners of Celeste

yet, under the situation here preChildress, but entered as a stranger sented, the rule concerning the efunder a deed purporting to convey fect of the finding of the court upon the entire interest in the property, the facts on appeal is without appliand claimed the same exclusively as cation. The evidence is practically his own. This itself operated a dis

without dispute, and it is evident seisin of the parties to this suit, that the decree rendered was based and the possession continued for

upon an erroneous view of the law such length of time as to perfect his

as applied to the facts before the title. This is very clearly stated in

court. When such Joyce v. Dyer, 189 Mass. 64, 109

is the case, the rule Appeal-effect of Am. St. Rep. 603, 75 N. E. 81, a

is of course without neous view of case of similar character to that

application. Murhere involved, wherein the court

phree v. Hanson, 197 Ala. 246, 72 said: “In considering this question

So. 437. we must bear in mind the familiar

Having reached the conclusion principle that when one enters upon

there is error in the decree of the land he is presumed to enter under

court below, it will be reversed, and the title which his deed purports

a decree will be here rendered, disupon its face to convey, both as re

missing the bill. spects the extent of the land and the nature of his interest. The deed to Anderson, Ch. J., and Sayre and Samuel Dyer purported to convey Thomas, JJ., concur.

law.

ANNOTATION.

Possession by one claiming under or through deed or mortgage by cotenant

as adverse to other cotenant.

I. General rule, 8. II. As affected by nature of conveyance,

13.

III. As affected by nature or extent of

possession, 20. IV. Rule in North Carolina, 25.

I. General mile.
Excluding any

consideration of sales between cotenants inter se, it appears to be well settled that where one of several cotenants conveys the joint estate by an instrument purporting to vest the fee to the entire property in the grantee, and the latter enters, asserting open and exclusive ownership thereof, in severalty, the cotenant not conveying is deemed to be ousted, and, on the termination of the statutory period, title by adverse possession becomes vested in the grantee.

United States. Clymer V. Dawkins (1845) 3 How. 674, 11 L. ed. 778; Jackson ex dem. Bradstreet v. Huntington (1831) 5 Pet. 402, 8 L. ed. 170; Prescott v. Nevers (1827) 4 Mason, 326, Fed. Cas. No. 11,390; Elder v. McClaskey (1895) 17 C. C. A. 251, 37 U. S. App. 199, 70 Fed. 529, reversing (1891) 47 Fed. 154.

Alabama. Abercrombie v. Baldwin (1849) 15 Ala. 363; Riggs V. Fuller (1875) 54 Ala. 141; Fielder v. Childs (1883) 73 Ala. 567; Gulf Red Cedar Lumber Co. v. Crenshaw (1906) 148 Ala. 343, 42 So. 564; Kidd v. Borum (1913) 181 Ala. 144, 61 So. 100, Ann. Cas. 1915C, 1226. See also Short v. De Bardeleben Coal Co. (1922) 208 Ala. 356, 94 So. 285. And see the reported case (DEW V. GARNER, ante, 5).

Arkansas. Brown Bocquin (1892) 57 Ark. 97, 20 S. W. 813; Jackson v. Cole (1920) 146 Ark. 565, 226 S. W. 513, 1064. See also Parsons v. Sharpe (1912) 102 Ark. 611, 145 S. W. 537; Patterson v. Miller (1922) 154 Ark. 124, 241 S. W. 875.

California. Unger Mooney (1883) 63 Cal. 586, 49 Am. Rep. 100; Spect v. Hagar (1884) 65 Cal. 443, 4

Pac. 419; Packard v. Moss (1885) 68 Cal. 123, 8 Pac. 818; Bath v. Valdez (1886) 70 Cal. 350, 11 Pac. 724, in effect overruling Seaton v. Son (1867) 32 Cal. 481; Frick v. Sinon (1888) 75 Cal. 337, 7 Am. St. Rep. 177, 17 Pac. 439; Winterburn v. Chambers (1891) 91 Cal. 170, 27 Pac. 658.

Connecticut. Clark v. Vaughan (1819) 3 Conn. 191; Lucas v. Crofoot (1921) 95 Conn. 619, 112 Atl. 165. See also White v. Beckwith (1892) 62 Conn. 79, 25 Atl. 400.

Georgia.-Horne v. Howell (1872) 46 Ga. 9; Cain v. Furlow (1873) 47 Ga. 674; Street v. Collier (1903) 118 Ga. 470, 45 S. E. 294. See also Norris v. Dunn (1883) 70 Ga. 800; McDowell v. Sutlive (1886) 78 Ga. 142, 2 S. E. 937; Morgan v. Mitchell (1898) 104 Ga. 596, 30 S. E. 792.

Hawaii.-Kuanalewa v. Kipi (1889) 7 Haw. 575.

Illinois.-Goewey v. Urig (1856) 18 Ill. 238; Hinchman V. Whetstone (1859) 23 Ill. 185; Burgett v. Taliaferro (1886) 118 Ill. 503, 9 N. E. 334; Steele v. Steele (1906) 220 Ill. 318, 77 N. E. 232; Waterman Hall v. Waterman (1906) 220 Ill. 569, 4 L.R.A. (N.S.) 776, 77 N. E. 142; Long v. Morrison (1911) 251 Ill. 143, 95 N. E. 1075; Roberts v. Cox (1913) 259 Ill. 232, 102 N. E. 204.

Indiana. · Nelson v. Davis (1871) 35 Ind. 474; Price v. Hall (1895) 140 Ind. 314, 49 Am. St. Rep. 196, 39 N. E. 941; Grubbs v. Leyendecker (1899) 153 Ind. 348, 53 N. E. 940. See also King v. Carmichael (1893) 136 Ind. 20, 43 Am. St. Rep. 303, 35 N. E. 509.

Iowa.-Kinney v. Slattery (1879) 51 Iowa, 353, 1 N. W. 626; Murray V. Quigley (1902) 119 Iowa, 6, 97 Am. St. Rep. 276, 92 N. W. 869; Crawford v. Meis (1904) 123 Iowa, 610, 66 L.R.A.

V.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

154, 101 Am. St. Rep. 337, 99 N. W. Minnesota. Ricker v.

Butler 186; Clarke v. Dirks (1916) 178 Iowa, (1891) 45 Minn. 545, 48 N. W. 407; 335, 160 N. W. 31; O'Dell v. Browning Hanson v. Ingwaldson (1899) 77 (1917) 182 Iowa, 223, 165 N. W. 395. Minn. 533, 77 Am. St. Rep. 692, 80 N. See also Curtis v. Barber (1906) 131 W. 702; Sanford v. Safford (1906) 99 Iowa, 400, 117 Am. St. Rep. 425, 108 Minn, 380, 116 Am. St. Rep. 432, 109 N. W. 755.

N. W..819. Kansas.- Nelson v. Oberg (1912)

- ) Mississippi. Gardiner v. Hinton 88 Kan. 14, 127 Pac. 767; See also (1905) 86 Miss. 604, 109 Am. St. Rep. Sparks v. Bodensick (1905) 72 Kan. 726, 38 So. 779, followed in Ferrell v. 5, 82 Pac. 463.

Hinton (1905) Miss. 38 So. 783. Kentucky. Gill v. Fauntleroy Missouri.—Miller v. Bledsoe (1875) (1847) 8 B. Mon. 177; Larman v. 61 Mo. 96; Johnson v. Calvert (1914) Huey (1852) 13 B. Mon. 436; Riddle 260 Mo. 442, 169 S. W. 78. See also v. McBee (1883) 4 Ky. L. Rep. 898; Long v. Stapp (1872) 49 Mo. 506. Greenhill v. Biggs (1887) 85 Ky. 155, Nebraska.-Wiese v. Union P. R. Co. 7 Am. St. Rep. 579, 2 S. W. 774; Rose (1906) 77 Neb. 40, 108 N. W. 175. See v. Ware (1903) 115 Ky. 420, 74 S. W. also Maxwell v. Higgins (1894) 38 188, on rehearing in (1903) 25 Ky. L. Neb. 671, 57 N. W. 388. Rep. 947, 76 S. W. 505; Wise v. Wolf Nevada. Abernathie v. Consoli(1905) 120 Ky. 263, 85 S. W. 1191; dated Virginia Min. Co. (1881) 16 Bloom v. Sawyer (1905) 121 Ky. 308, Nev. 260; O'Banion v. Simpson (1920) 89 S. W. 204; Miller V. McDowell 44 Nev. 188, 191 Pac. 1083. (1891) 13 Ky. L. Rep. 535, 17 S. W. New Hampshire.—Newmarket Mfg. 482; May v. Chesapeake & 0. R. Co. Co. v. Pendergast (1851) 24 N. H. 54. (1919) 184 Ky. 493, 212 S. W. 131. See See also Hatch v. Partridge (1857) 35 also Pope v. Brassfield (1901) 110 Ky. N. H. 148. 128, 61 S. W. 5; Adkins v. Whalin New Jersey.-Watson V. Jeffrey (1888) 87 Ky. 153, 12 Am. St. Rep. (1884) 39 N. J. Eq. 62; Foulke v. 470, 7 S. W. 912.

Bond (1879) 41 N. J. L. 527. Louisiana. Liles v. Pitts (1919) New Mexico. Neher v. Armijo 145 La. 650, 82 So. 735.

(1898) 9 N. M. 325, 54 Pac. 237; Maine. Thomas v. Pickering Armijo v. Neher (1903) 11 N. M. 645, (1836) 13 Me. 337; Soper v. Lawrence 72 Pac. 12; Baker v. De Armijo (1912) Bros. Co. (1903) 98 Me. 268, 99 Am. 17 N. M. 383, 128 Pac. 73. St. Rep. 397, 56 Atl. 908.

New York. — Clapp v. Bromagham Maryland.-Rutter v. Small (1887) (1827) 9 Cow. 530; Town v. Needham 68 Md. 133, 6 Am. St. Rep. 434, 11 Atl. (1832) 3 Paige, 545, 24 Am. Dec. 246; 698; Merryman v. Cumberland Paper Bogardus v. Trinity Church (1833) 4 Co. (1903) 98 Md. 223, 56 Atl. 364. Paige, 178, affirmed in (1835) 15 Wend.

Massachusetts. Parker v. Locks 111; Jackson ex dem. Preston v. Smith & Canals (1841) 3 Met. 91, 37 Am. (1816) 13 Johns.

Johns. 406; Baker Dec. 121; Kittredge v. Locks & Canals Oakwood (1890) 123 N. Y. 16, 10 (1836) 17 Pick, 246, 28 Am. Dec. 296; L.R.A. 387, 25 N. E. 312; Sweetland Higbee v. Rice (1809) 5 Mass. 344, 4 V. Buell (1900) 164 N. Y. 541, 79 Am. Dec. 63. See also Bigelow V. Am. St. Rep. 676, 58 N. E. 663, afJones (1831) 10 Pick. 161; Marcy v. firming (1895) 89 Hun, 543, 35 N. Y. Marcy (1843) 6 Met. 360; Lefavour v. Supp. 346; Koch v. Ellwood (1910) Homan (1862) 3 Allen, 354.

138 App. Div. 584, 123 N. Y. Supp. Michigan. — Highstone v. Burdette 502; Stappenbeck v. Mather (1911) 73 (1886) 61 Mich. 54, 27 N. W. 852; Misc. 434, 133 N. Y. Supp. 482. See Fuller v. Swensberg (1895) 106 Mich. also Hamershlag v. Duryea (1899) 38 305, 58 Am. St. Rep. 481, 64 N. W. App. Div. 130, 56 N. Y. Supp. 615; 463; Brigham V. Reau (1905) 139 Wright v. Saddler (1859) 20 N. Y. 329. Mich. 256, 102 N. W. 845; Payment v. Oregon.-Crowley v. Grant (1912) Murphy (1905) 141 Mich. 626, 104 N. 63 Or. 212, 127 Pac. 28. W. 1111.

Pennsylvania.-Culler v. Motzer

V.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

[ocr errors]

(1825) 13 Serg. & R. 356, 15 Am. Dec. Hiden (1921) 130 Va. 123, 107 S. E. 604; Earle v. Delaware, L. & W. R. Co. 708. (1921) 270 Pa. 152, 113 Atl. 196. See West Virginia.—Talbott v. Woodalso Law v. Patterson (1841) 1 Watts ford (1900) 48 W. Va. 449, 37 S. E. & S. 184.

580; Bennett v. Pierce (1901) 50 W. Rhode Island.—Union Sav. Bank v. Va. 604, 40 S. E. 395; Pickens v. Stout Taber (1882) 13 R. I. 683.

(1910) 67 W. Va. 422, 68 S. E. 354; South Carolina.-Gray Bates Lloyd v. Mills (1910) 68 W. Va. 241, (1848) 34 S. C. L. (3 Strobh.) 498; 32 L.R.A.(N.S.) 702, 69 S. E. 1094; Sudduth v. Sumeral (1901) 61 S. C. Perkin v. Pfalzgraff (1906) 60 W. Va. 276, 85 Am. St. Rep. 883, 39 S. E. 534; 121, 53 S. E. 913 (by Brannon, J.) McIntosh v. Kolb (1919) 112 S. C. 1, See also Cecil v. Clark (1898) 44 99 S. E. 356. See also Odom v. W. Va. 659, 30 S. E. 216; Justice v. Weathersbee (1887) 26 S. C. 244, 1 S. E. Lamson (1899) 46 W. Va. 163, 33 S. E. 890; Coleman v. Coleman (1905) 71 102; McNeeley v. South Penn Oil Co. S. C. 518, 51 S. E. 250.

(1903) 52 W. Va. 616, 62 L.R.A. 562, South Dakota.-Taylor v. Edgerton 44 S. E. 508; Hutchens Denton (1919) 42 S. D. 106, 173 N. W. 444. (1919) 83 W. Va. 580, 98 S. E. 808.

Tennessee.-Weisinger v. Murphy Wisconsin.-Wright v. Sperry (1867) (1859) 2 Head, 674; Burns v. Heade- 21 Wis. 332; Sydnor v. Palmer (1871) rick (1886) 85 Tenn. 102, 2 S. W. 259. 29 Wis. 226. See also Waterhouse v. Martin (1824) England.-Townsend's Case (1584) Peck, 392.

4 Leon. 52, 74 Eng. Reprint, 724; Doe Texas.—Jacks V. Dillon (1894) 6 ex dem. Reed v. Taylor (1833) 5 Barn. Tex. Civ. App. 192, 25 S. W. 645; Lewis & Ad. 575, 110 Eng. Reprint, 903, 2 v. Terrell (1894) 7 Tex. Civ. App. 314, Nev. & M. 508, 3 L. J. K. B. N. S. 67. 26 S. W. 754; Naylor v. Foster (1906) "No citation of authorities is re44 Tex. Civ. App. 599, 99 S. W. 114; quired to establish the proposition Church v. Waggoner (1890) 78 Tex. that one who enters under a warranty 200, 14 S. W. 581; Hardy Oil Co. v. deed of the entire premises is never Burnham (1909) 58 Tex. Civ. App. 285, presumed to be a tenant in common, 124 S. W. 221; Eastham v. Gibbs (1910) but a tenant in severalty.” Soper v. 58 Tex. Civ. App. 627, 125 S. W. 372; Lawrence Bros. Co. (1903) 98 Me. 278, Robles v. Robles (1913) Tex. Civ. 99 Am. St. Rep. 397, 56 Atl. 908. App. —, 154 S. W. 230; Jung v. Peter- The distinction between adverse mann (1917) Tex. Civ. App. —, possession as against strangers and as 194 S. W. 202; Olsen v. Grelle (1921) against other tenants in common, and

Tex. 228 S. W. 927, reversing the effect of a conveyance of the whole on other grounds (1916) Tex. Civ. estate by one tenant in common to App. - 190 S. W. 240. See also

overcome the presumption that posByers v. Carll (1894) 7 Tex. Civ. App.

session is not adverse to cotenants, 423, 27 S. W. 190; Morgan v. White

are clearly and fully set out in Foulke (1908) 50 Tex. Civ. App. 318, 110 S. W.

v. Bond (1879) 41 N. J. L. 527. The 491; Alexander v. Kennedy (1857) 19

court there said: “In the acquisition Tex. 488, 70 Am. Dec. 358. Compare

of title by adverse possession the

distinction between strangers and Kirby v. Hayden (1906) 44 Tex. Civ.

tenants in common relates to the charApp. 207, 99 S. W. 746.

acter of the evidence necessary to Vermont. Roberts v. Morgan

prove that the possession was adverse. (1858) 30 Vt. 319; Waterman v. Moody

The relations between the joint owners (1918) 92 Vt. 218, 103 Atl. 325.

are presumed to be amicable rather Virginia.-Johnston Virginia

than hostile, and the acts of one affectCoal & I. Co. (1898) 96 Va. 158, 31 ing the common property are presumed S. E. 85; Virginia Coal & I. Co. v. to be done for the common benefit. Hylton (1913) 115 V 418, 79 S. E. Freeman, Cotenancy S 166. This 337. See also Buchanan King presumption is liable to be overcome (1872) 22 Gratt. 414; Cochran v. by the circumstances of the particu

V.

V.

lar case. It is a rule of evidence mere- his title. But where the grantee has ly, which enters into the ques- obtained a conveyance of the whole estion whether the possession is in fact tate by one of the cotenants, entry adverse, and not a rule of law, which made under such a title is a disseisin forbids the application of the Statute of the other cotenants.... Entry of Limitations to persons who occupy by a grantee holding under a deed of to each other the relation of tenants

conveyance for the entire estate, made in common. It is with respect to those by one of the cotenants and duly two essential qualities of the posses- placed on record, has all the constitusion, on which title by lapse of time ent elements of a disseisin at common is founded,-hostility in fact to the

law. The conveyance by one tenant title of the true owner, and notoriety

of the estate in entirety is decisive of the adverse claim,—that the fact

of his purpose to appropriate the enof a cotenancy between the parties be

tire estate to his own use, especially comes an important element. If the

if his deed contain full covenants of parties are strangers in title, possession and the exercise of rights of

seisin and warranty. The entry of the ownership are in themselves, in the

grantee under such a conveyance is absence of explanatory evidence, proof equally evincive of his intention to of an ouster of the true owner,

claim the whole to the exclusion of the whereas, in cases of privity of title

other cotenants, and if the deed be such as subsists between tenants in

duly recorded the transaction acquires common, the acts of possession of one

that notoriety which is equivalent to tenant will, in the absence of satisfac

the notoriety of livery of seisin. The tory evidence to the contrary, be re

disseisin thereupon becomes complete; ferred to the community of title, and

and, if possession be held continuthere must be clearer and more de

ously thereafter for the period of cisive evidence of an ouster by one twenty years by open and notorious tenant in common of his associate than acts of ownership, without any interis necessary to prove that a person ference on the part of the other having no right to possession had cotenants, title to the whole estate ousted an owner in severalty. Doe ex may be acquired by adverse possesdem. Reed v. Taylor (Eng.) supra;

sion." Prescott v. Nevers (1827) 4 Mason,

In Clarke v. Dirks (1916) 178 Iowa, 330, Fed. Cas. No. 11,390; Freeman, 335, 160 N. W. 31, the court said: “The Cotenancy, § 221. An ouster by a rule is, that where one cotenant in tenant in common does not differ in possession conveys the entire fee in its nature from any other ouster, in the land, by warranty deed, to a stranany respect, except in the degree of ger, who knows nothing of the limitaevidence required; in other cases the tion upon his title, and surrenders assumption of ownership is more possession to the stranger, and the clearly adverse; in case of a tenant in stranger enters into possession under common such assumption of owner- the deed, believing that he has ship, and the acts which indicate it, full title to the property,

the may be consistent with an acknowledg- presumption is that he enters unment of the rights of the cotenant,

der the terms of his deed as fee owner, and therefore acts which are decisive and a complete ouster has been efin the one case are equivocal and in- fected. A continued, uninterrupted, sufficient in the other. ... The pre- adverse possession for the statutory sumption that the entry of one coten- period thereafter ripens in him a title ant is for the benefit of all applies against the adverse claims of all to a third person who acquires an un- others. The Statute of Limitations divided interest under a conveyance

is a statute of repose.” to that effect from one of the original In Lucas v. Crofoot (1921) 95 Conn. cotenants. He has title to an undi- 619, 112 Atl. 165, it was held that the vided interest, and his entry is pre- effect of a deed by a cotenant purportsumed to have been in accordance with ing to convey the whole title was to

« 이전계속 »