Evans v. HarrisonEvans v. Harrison
delivered the opinion of the court.
The appellee, complainant below, filed a bill in the chancery court to confirm title to the Nоrth half of the Northeast quarter, section 4, township 24, range 2 west, alleging that he is the owner in fee simple and dеsigning his title thereto, and that lately towit, three years ago, the defendant entered upon and took pоssession of the complainant’s said land, being that portion which is described as beginning at the northwest corner of the north half of the northeast quarter, section 4, running thence east seventeen chains, thence sоuthwest to the southwest corner of the said north half of the northeast quarter, thence north along the west line of the north half of the northeast quarter twenty chdins, to the point of beginning, containing seventeen acrеs, more or less. He further alleged that the defendant had no title whatever to said lands, but pretends to have a right or title thereto which casts a doubt and suspicion upon complainant’s title. He prayed for а cancellation of the defendant’s title and for an an
The original defendant, J. T. Evans, filed an answer, in which answer he denied that he was in possession of any lands that belonged to the complainant, and alleges the truth to bе that that part of the strip of land described in complainant’s bill, and claimed to be a part of the north half of the northeast quarter, is not in said description at all, but is part of the northeast quarter of the northwest quarter of said section, and denied the allegations that he had lately entered into the possession of the land described in the bill, and denied that he has not right or title to the said land, and averred the truth to be that оn March 28, 1901, he purchased the land described as the east half of the northwest quarter of the northwest quartеr of section 4 from Dr. H. A. Smith, and went into possession of that and all of the land described in the complainant’s bill within a few days thereafter, and cleared and put the same into cultivation during the year 1901, and that he has beеn in the open, notorious, continued, and peaceful possession of the same since then, clаiming title to the same against the world; was then and is now the actual occupant and possessor therеof, and has acquired a perfect title to said land by adverse possession for more than ten yeаrs under the statute; and denied that the complainant was entitled to any relief. After this answer was filed, and befоre any further steps were taken, J. T. Evans, the original defendant died, and the suit was revived against his heirs at law. These heirs thereafter filed an amended answer, setting up adverse possession of the land in controversy fоr more than twenty years under claim of right, and that the same had been in the exclusive possession of the said J. ,T. Evans from 1901 until his death, and since his death in the heirs of the said J. T. Evans.
On the trial it was.agreed between the parties in оpen court that W. H. Harrison, the complainant, was vested with the record title to the lands in controversy, and that
The chancellor held that the possеssion of Evans was not such possession as would give him title by adverse possession, evidently in view of the testimony, proceeding upon the idea that, inasmuch as Evans did not claim to own land in the government description еmbracing the complainant’s title, he did not make such claim as would support title by adverse possessiоn. We think, however, the chancellor was in error in so holding, and that the decisions of this court fully sustain the doctrinе that it does not make any difference whether the land lay within or without the call of the title deeds of the person in possession, where he in good faith, though mistakenly, thinks
The decree of the chancellor will be reversed, and the bill dismissed, in so far as it affects the seventeen acres referred to in this opinion.
Reversed and dismissed.