Daily capital journal. (Salem, Oregon) 1903-1919, 1911-04-12

the circuit court for Columbia
county. The Hon. Thomas A. Nc
Bride, Judge. Argued and submitted
March 9. 1911. o. C. Spencer (and
L. X. Adams, on brieD fr respondent
T. ]. Cleeton (Graham & Cleeton and
H. B. Nicholas, on brieD for Appel
liant. Eakin, C. j., reversed.
John Daily, this defendant, COM
menced an action in ejectment
against this plaintiff, Parker, to re-
cover the Z Y of the S E u, Sec
81, T. N. R. w., W. NJ, in Colum-
bia county. Plainti, relying upon a
tax title and adverse possession, and
for the purpose of recovering the
value of improvements made, in case
his title fails, brings this suit as a
cross-bill alleging that his remedy at
law is inadequate; that he has been
in possession of the premises since
October %, 1898, and has made i'm
provements thereon of the value of
S250O which have enhanced the
property in that amount. In the
prayer he asks that in case he is un-
able to maintain his title to the
premises, that he have a decree re-
quiring defendant to compensate for
the amount the Improvements have
enhanced the premises.
The lower court found that plain
tiff had not acquired title by the tax
sale nor by adverse possession, but
that he, in good faith, entered into
possession of the property by virtue
of the pretended tax sale and has oc-
cupied and improved the premises
for about nine years in the belief
that he has good title; that the i'm
provements made by him have en-
HANGED the property in the amount of
$3.50. A decree was rendered that
plaintiff has lien on the premises
for that amount with interest; that
defendant be allowed to redeem the
same within 80 days, in default of
which the property shall be sold as
in cases of foreclosure of liens for
the satisfaction of the lien; and that
upon such redemption defendant Daily
shall be entitled to the possession of
the premises and not otherwise. De-
fendant appeals.
Eakin, G. j.: DAILY acquired title
to the premises as a homestead, the
final receipt being dated April %,
1896 and the patent having been is
sued June 26, 1896. Plaintiff has not
appealed. Therefore the only ques-
tions to be determined are, whether
plaintiff has lien upon the premises
for the value of the Improvements,
and, if so, how much they are en-
hanced by such Improvements.
G. L. Parker, plaintiffs father, on
October 25, 1898, purchased the prop
erty for taxes levied for the years
1890 and 1891, for the sum of $34.25,
the amount of such taxes, costs and
penalties Plaintiff took an assign
ment of the certificates of sale from
his father, paying him the same con-
sideration therefor. He entered into
possession thereof about the date of
the sale. The time for redemption un-
der the sale expired on October 26,
1900, On February 26, 1901, he re-
ceived a tax deed from the sheriff
therefor, and during the time of his
possession made extensive improve
ments thereon.
First, it is necessary to determine
under what circumstances the pur-
chaser in possession of real estate
is entitled to recover the value of his
improvements when ousted from pos
session by the owner. In Hatcher v.
Briggs, Or, 81, in which similar
question was involved, it is held that
where a purchaser for a valuable
consideration, without notice of any
infrmity in his title, has by his i'm
provements added to the permanent
value of the estate, he is entitled to
full remuneration for such added