149 N.E. 353 | Ind. Ct. App. | 1925
This is an appeal from a judgment rendered against appellants in an action to quiet title to certain real estate described in the amended complaint and cross-complaint, appellee basing its right of action upon the record title, and appellants, as cross-complainants, upon adverse possession.
Appellee's amended complaint in one paragraph was answered by a general denial. Appellants' cross-complaint in one paragraph asserting title by adverse possession, by a general denial.
The cause was submitted to the court for trial resulting in a general finding and judgment in favor of appellee and against the appellants. Appellants' motion *582 for new trial was overruled. This ruling of the court is assigned as the only error.
At the trial, it was stipulated and agreed that, while appellee had the record title, the question to be litigated in the trial of the cause was to be whether or not the possession of appellants had been of such a nature as to ripen into title to the real estate described in appellants. It appears by the undisputed evidence that Charles Swanson, the father of appellants, built a fence around the tract involved in 1873, in the exact location where the fence is now. He maintained the fence continuously thereafter. The land was first used for pasture, but afterward he grubbed and cleared it and farmed it. Corn, wheat, millet and potatoes were raised on it. The land, or a part of it, did not produce very good crops and was used more for pasture for horses and cattle. Swanson ditched the land, repaired the fence from time to time and farmed it every year after 1873, until his death in 1906, after which time, it has been occupied adversely by appellants.
Under these undisputed facts, the rule that must control is thus stated in Roots v. Beck (1887),
The rule is thus stated in Craven v. Craven (1913),
Appellee relies upon Philbin v. Carr (1920),
The fact that appellee had paid the taxes from time to time on the eighty-acre tract of which the land in controversy was a part is not such a challenge of appellants' title under the 5. circumstances of this case as to prevent the running of the statute of limitations.
Judgment reversed, with instructions to grant a new trial.