Farmer v. R. C. Tway Coal Co.Farmer v. R. C. Tway Coal Co.
Opinion of the Court by
Affirming.
Joku H. Farmer and Millard Farmer .brought this suit against the R. C. Tway Coal Company, W. S. Hall
The facts are these: On January 24, 1903, Perry Farmer, sometimes called Parris Farmer, and his wife, Nancy Farmer, executed and delivered to A. B. Cornett a deed whiсh was duly recorded conveying 31 acres of land on the D. H. Smith branch of Martin’s fork in Harlan county.
On February 5,1904, the same grantors conveyed by deed which was duly recorded the mineral rights in a tract of land on the.I). IT. Smith branch of Martin’s fork containing about 68% acrеs.
On July 15, 1916, A. B. Cornett conveyed to W. F. Hall the mineral rights in 122 9/10 acres of land, which boundary includes a small amount of the land conveyed to Cornett by the deed of January 24, 1903, and practically all of the land embraced in the deed of February 5, 1904.
Subsequently W. F. Hall executed a lease giving to the R. C. Tway Coal Company the right to mine and remove the coal from the land.
Appellants claim title under a deed purporting to have been executed by their father and mother on May 25, 1900, and witnessed by their uncle, Binghаm Farmer, and their brother, John Farmer. Their evidence is to the effect that their father was living with another woman, that their mother threatened to sue him, and that finally the matter was adjusted by the execution of the conveyance in question, the cоnsideration being that the grantees, who were then eight and twelve years old respectively, would support their parents as long as they lived. The alleged deed, however, was not put to record until March 9, 1920. It was then removed from the clerk’s, office, and not produced at the trial, it being claimed that it had been lost.
Appellees claim that the alleged dеed of May 25, 1900, was not genuine, and that even if genuine, they purchased and paid value for the land without any notice of its existence, or of any claim by appellants. On the other hand, appellants claim that appellees purchased with notice, and that the several conveyances by which they acquired title were champertous.
In view of оur conclusions on other questions that are determinative of the case, we deem it unnecessary to
On the question of notice Nancy Farmer, wife of Perry Farmer, testified that when A. B. Cornett was negotiating for the purchase of the minerals, she informed him that her1 husband, Perry, did not own anything on this side оf the branch, but had deeded that land to Millard and John, and that she also conveyed the same information to Denver Cornеtt, the son of A. B. Cornett, at the time he took her acknowledgment to the deed. In this she is corroborated by her children, who claim to have been present and to have heard the conversation. On the other hand, A. B. Cornett and Denver Cornett bоth say that no such conversation took place. When we take into consideration the fact that the evidenсe corroborative of Mrs. Farmer’s testimony was given by witnesses who claim to have recalled a conversation whiсh occurred sixteen years before, and at a time when they were little children, and the further fact that men of experience in business affffairs ordinarily do not purchase and pay for property when informed that they will get no title, we arе not prepared to say that the chancellor erred in believing the Cornetts rather than appellants and their witnesses. v
Clearly there is no merit in the contention that the mere presence of appellants on the land was.sufficiеnt to put A. B. Cornett on inquiry as to their title. It may be conceded that possession of land by a third person is sufficient to put a subsеquent purchaser on inquiry and charge him with notice of everything that ordinary diligence in pursuing the inquiry would disclose. Following this rule, it is held thаt the possession of a purchaser of real estate under an unrecorded deed is notice to the world that he has some claim which puts a subsequent purchaser upon inquiry and protects the possessor (Mitchell v. Metropolitаn Elevated Railway Co.,
Nor can it be said that either the conveyance from Perry Farmer to A. B. Cornett or the conveyance frоm Cornett to Hall was champertous. As before stated, appellants were little children occupying the land jointly with thеir mother when A. B, Cornett purchased, and the circumstances were not such as to show that their holding was adverse. When Hall purchased the' situation was this: Perry Farmer, the titleholder of record, had sold the mineral rights to Cornett. When Perry Farmer died the titlе to the surface descended to his children, subject to the dower rights of his widow. If when Hall purchased appellants werе occupying the land, they had the right to do so, because they owned the surface and there was nothing to indicate that their holding was hostile or adverse to the owner of the mineral rights which had been separated by prior conveyance. Va. Iron, Coal & Coke Co. v. Combs,
Judgment affirmed.