Bismarck daily tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1881-1916, 1905-11-06

IL ID uSiu, CVuStTuuuS anu applying Sec
tfon 1850, Revised Codes, that the
plaintiffs deed. which purports to be
an absolute conveyance, cannot, ais to
this defendant, be defeated or affected
by the parol agreement with Desche-
mes, Of which the defendant had no
actdal notice, and that the defendant Is
entitled tosa Judgment of foreclosure.
johnson Us Eriandson. 81
Ann johnson, appellant, VS.. Nels V.
Erlandson, respondent. Appeal from
the district Court Of Mclean county;
W. H. Winchester, Judge, J. T. McCul-
Tough, (John F. Philbrick, Of counseD
Tor appellant. A. +. Patterson, New
ton & Dullam, Of counseD for respond
ent. ~
The plaintin brought this action to
quiet title to 800 acres Of land In Nc
Lean county. On and prior to April
1892, the land was owned by one
Emanuel Hogenson. On the date last
named Hogenson and wife conveyed IT
to Nels v. Erlandson by warranty
deed, which has never been placed lof
record. On May H., 1892, Erfandsbn
and wife executed a deed to one Mil.
ton P. Baker and left the same in the
possession of one Anders e. Anderson,
to be delivered in case GRANDSON ap.
proved of certain California property
which Baker proposed to give him lii
exchange for the land In Question,
The proposed trade was rejected by
Erlandson Notwithstanding that The
trade was not completed or the condi.
tfons warranted The delivery OF the
deed performed, Baker Obtained pos.
session Of the deed and placed it iot
record on September %, 1892. on
sptenber' Is, 1894, Baker conveyed the
land to the plaintiff Ann johnson, byy
Warranty deed which was placed iof
record on. February Is, 1895. The
plaintiff redeemed the land from tax
sales for 1892 and 1893, and has paid
the taxes ever since and is now ahdf
has been for several years IN possess
sion of the Hand through tenants
Previous to the time the plaintiff tobk
actual possession the land was .un6c.'
cupied The trial court found that:
plaintin was not entitled to a delivery
OF the deed, and that the deed Was;
not delivered to him, and that the
plaintiff acquired no title through her
deed from Baker, and entered iudes.
ment canceling said deed of recotd
and quieting defendants title. Plain
TIM appeals and demands review to,'
+ the entire case. y.
1T IS not clear how the deed came
into Bakers possession. Baker ifs
dead. Anderson testiaes he did rof
give 1T toFhim; chat IT vas on His desk,
Fandt' disappeared from it without sbis
knowledge or consent. tits lear that
there was no authorized delivery, ami.
as between the parties, LIT did nat,
therefore, 2 pass title. ire se,yv,derSce
Shows beyond question 1iisa,t the nfa,n.
TIM n'fthe 0ats10sz5 f'q good faith MIA
Baker full"valhst forothetsand + ana A..
copied CONVEYANCE froc, hin, bel,av.
ling hfmto be- The iowner .;
The opinion as written nbv a1us,,,a
Engerud, and"tae syflaHsIS,,' IS 40 = RI,
lows: ~
l. Where a person, sfbya resasson L.,
actual notice of d given fact, u ssoo,1,4,t
to be- charged With notice Of 'otter
Facts which inquiry awae otuh1d !idtso1oist,
there must APPEAR in the nature Of Me-
case such a Connection between the,
known fact andsthe Tact with nottra
OF which he is sought TO be chars.
That the former may be said to furn;lh
a reasonable and natural cfue to tbs
latter. '" tne
2. The fact that a purchaser frc;In,,
VINO claimed title under a recorded
oeed from e, valid on It's face. knaw
tnat the deed from 4 previous ownar
TO Ewas missing and 1unfecorded -
not sufficient to charge SUCH nu,rch. sa,,
WIN constructive notice of the fact
'nat BIS deed had been wronefui1t
obtained by the latter. =.
8. Where the grantor in deed A..
posted in escrow knew that the ,pran
tee named therein had wrongfullv Nv,
tained possession thereof and had 10,
recorded and legligently permitted.th
grantees apparent ownership to- -o..
main unchallenged for an unre,a sor;,
able length of time, such serratntoor 10,
estopped to deny the granteate,s title a.
against an Innocent purchaser rom
the latter. on
M ..-.. g
me judgment of the district .cb,,rt
is reversed and the court wiz Tehdar,
judgment In favor Of plaintiff foor1 the,
relief demanded IN the complaint - =
~ Doing Her Best,
"NO ." said -fho 4Teis,s,,, ~ - 1T a. &c