The daily star-mirror., 1922-07-31
TWO IMPORTANT
COURT DECISIONS
SUPREME COURT SETTLES MEAN
ING OF WORD "GRANT" IN
DEED OF CONVEYANCE

Just what the word grant means
in deed of conveyance in the state
OF Idaho has been a mooted question
among attorneys-whether the person
who makes the deed is responsible
for all liens against the property,
including taxes. According to de-
ciSion of the Idaho state supreme
court, just handed ownd, in thu case
of O. G, Carssow, A. e. Carssow and
Paul w. Johnson against Caleb Brin-
ton, involving Lewiston property, the
maker of the deed is responsible.
The history of the case is as fol-
lows:
The action was brought in the dis
trict court at Lewiston by the Cars
SowS to recover the amount of taxes
paid by them on property originally
belonging to Brinton. Brinton sold
the property on August %, 1919, to
Mr.. and Mrs. ]. A. Johnson, who in
turn sold it the following day TO the
Carssows and Paul Johnson. De-
mand was made upon Brinton to pay
the 1919 taxes He refused, and an
action was filed in the district court,
which dismissed the case. On appeal.
the decision was reversed, and Brin-
In companion opinion the court
decided that an action commenced by
Brinton to foreclose mortgage for
$12,380, given by Mr.. and Mrs. john
son, was premature. The day they
bought the property they gave mort
gage, with interest due semi-annually.
The next day they sold the property
to the CarssOws.
The first interest installment was
due February 27, 1920, but was not
paid by the Johnsons, and Brinton
electing, by the terms of the mortgage
to declare the whole amount due and
collectible, began the foreclosure ac-
tion The Johnsons and Carssows an
swered by declaring that, by reason OF
the faiulre of Brinton to remove the
tax lien, amounting to $513.62, they
had the right to remove the lien them
selves and deduct the amount from
the purchase price mortgage, and that
since the amount of the tax exceeded
the first semi-annual interest install
ment, which was $49525, there was
no default on their part, and tGe ac-
tion to foreclose was brought pre-
maturely. Judgment was entered in
the lower court for foreclosure, but
the supreme court reversed the cvder.
High Water Mark Property Line
The supreme court also handed
down a decision in the case of Edna
Pearcy Miller and her husband, Frank
to eject the lewiston ClaTks
ton Canning company and thesJ. Alex
ander company from certain proper
ty along the Snake river in Lewiston,
holding that the plaintiffs could show
no title to the property in question.
Mr. and Mrs. Miller claimed the
land by inheritance from her father,
to whom two deeds were executed by
the mayor-trustee of the city of Lew
iston, one in 1872 and one in 1882,
which purported to convey title to
the land in question.
In the state of Idaho all lands be-
low the ordinary highwater mark be-
long to the state of Idaho and suffi-
cient evidence, the supreme court
found, was introduced At the trial to
show that this land was below the CT
dinary highwater mark. in v,ew OF
this evidence the high court held the
deeds introduced by the Miles were
void because they were to property
to the state and controlled
by the city of Lewiston, subject to
the paramount fee title of the state Of
Idaho.