Case Name: Wickes vs. Lake and another, impleaded, etc
Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Wisconsin
Decision Date: 1869-06
Citations: 25 Wis. 71
Docket Number: 
Parties: Wickes vs. Lake and another, impleaded, etc
Judges: 
Reporter: Wisconsin Reports
Volume: 25
Pages: 71–98

Head Matter:
Wickes vs. Lake and another, impleaded, etc
1. Where P., being the equitable owner of sixty- acres of land, of which three-fourths of an acre had been cleared and fenced, left it in charge of a person living on an adjoining tract, who chopped wood upon it and cultivated the clearing, the land being in a densely timbered and sparsely settled country, and the neighbors generally understanding that it belonged to P.: Held, that this was such a possession as constituted notice of P.’s right to one who took a mortgage from the holder of the legal title.
2. In a foreclosure of the mortgage, P. having set up his title, and prayed for a decree that the mortgage be released as against him, and the claim having been litigated, it was not error to grant such relief.
Per Dixow, 0. J., dissenting:
1. The possession was vacant, and was insufficient to put the mortgagee upon inquiry.
2. The rule “ that possession, to be notice, must be open, visible, exclusive and unambiguous, not liable to be misunderstood or misconstrued,” requires that it should be thus clearly marked and distinguished as the possession of the pa/tty claiming adversely, and not that of the party having the legal title of record. It must be inconsistent with the possession, and presumed right of possession, which follow the legal title, and which appear to be in the party having such title of record. Ely •o. Wilcox (20 Wis. 523), commented upon, and the facts explained.
3. If the a/pparent possession of land is consistent with the title appearing of record, it is not the duty of the purchaser to make any inquiry concerning the title beyond what the recording office shows.
4. It is only upon the premises themselves, and of persons found there at the time of purchase, that the purchaser is bound to inquire. r Some probable exceptions to this rule noted.
5. Where neighborhood reports or understanding as to an adverse title or claim are admissible in evidence to charge, a mortgagee or purchaser for value with" notice, it must be shown that he knew them, and the facts, or some of them, with respect to such reputed title or claim.
6. Whether, under our recording acts, the purchaser from the party having the title of record is in any case bound to go upon the land and ascertain, at his peril, that it is not adversely possessed, or, if it be so possessed, is conclusively presumed to know it, or whether it is not. incumbent on the party in possession, and relying upon it, to show that the purchaser had actual knowledge of it, qucere.
APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Fond du Lao County.
Foreclosure of mortgage of one hundred and sixty acres of land, executed February 7,1854, by one Eliza McCune to the Milwaukee & Horicon Railway Company, and subsequently, before due, negotiated to the plaintiff.
In 1849, Jane McCune, owning a warrant for 160 acres of land, requested her brother, John McCune, to enter for her the land here in question; and he did enter it with said warrant, but in his own name. At the same time he entered in his own name an adjoining 160 acre tract, with a warrant belonging to Eliza McCune, who was also his sister, and had requested him to enter said tract for her. In 1851, Jane McCune sold and conveyed the tract in suit to one McWhorter, of whom the defendant LaTce and one S. I). Palmer purchased and took deeds during that and the following year, the-deed to LaTce being for one hundred acres, and that to Palmer for sixty acres, of said tract. In 1852, John McCune undertook to convey to his sisters the tracts which he had purchased for them respectively, as above stated, but by mistake, not discovered by any one until 1858, he conveyed Jane’s tract to Eliza,- and that of the latter to Jane. When Eliza executed the mortgage in suit, she supposed that it covered the land originally entered for her.
Lake and Palmer each asked to have the plaintiff adjudged to release the mortgage as against his premises, on the ground that he was the equitable owner in possession at the time the mortgage was made and when it was negotiated to' the plaintiff, arid that" the mortgagee and the plaintiff were chargeable with notice of his rights. That their possession at the time of the assignment to the plaintiff was sufficient, does not seem to h,aVe been disputed; and the only important■ question was,-'owh.eth.er there was such a possession as to charge the railroad company when it received the mortgage. The evidence tended to show that Lake went on to the land claimed by him in December, 1851, and cleared up about two and a half acres between that time and March, 1852; that he then left it, and did not return until March, 1855, being out,of the state most of the-time. Lake himself testified: “ When I went off in the spring of 1852, I let the land, by parol, to Mr. Black-wood until I returned. He was to use the three-quarters of an acre that was fenced, and was to clear what I had chopped, and was to have timber off the place ; and he took timber off of it to build a barn. On my return, I found him in possession of the premises ; he had fences-on them, and his cattle pasturing there. More than half the farmers had fences of the same kind. He gave up the possession of the premises to me, and I remained there. * * There was no house on the land when I returned, and no one living there.” It appears that Blackwood owned land immediately adjoining that of Lake, and there was a division' fence between them, made of logs. Bláckwood testified: “When I came here in 1849, there was about one-half an acre cleared for cultivation, and one-half an acre chopped, on this land which is claimed by Lake, and there was a fence around the clearing. In 1851, Lake chopped perhaps a couple of acres, cut some logs for a shanty, and split rails for a fence on his land. This clearing came up to the road from Oshkosh to Hortonia. * * Lake left t.bis land in my care when he went away in the spring of 1852. * * I inclosed nearly the whole land with a brush'fence, and kept my cattle on it. I kept the fences in repair about the clearing, and raised potatoes on it. I took some firewood and cut some hewing sticks for a barn frame on this land. I had possession until Lake came back in 1855. I cropped the clearing every year, and kept my cattle on the land. * * Previous to 1854 this land was partly inclosed by my fence on one side and the mill pond on the other. * * The country in and around Hortonia was heavily timbered in 1854. It was new, and there was but little clearing on any of the farms. There were only a few acres under cultivation in the-town. This farm of Lateés was used about the same as other farms in that town, except, perhaps, that others had a few more acres cultivated. The indications of actual occupancy and ownership of this land were about the same as on other farms in that town.” Another witness testified: “In 1849 there was a small clearing on this land [claimed by Latte], three-fourths of an acre or more. This clearing was on the only road we had south from here to Oshkosh at that time, and came clear up to the road. Latte chopped adjoining this clearing and in sight of the road. * * When Blackwood was in possession of the land, there was a log fence built between him and Latte ; there was also a fence around the clearing on the place. . The fence built by Blackwood, and the mill pond, inclosed nearly all of LaJtés land; so that, after the fence was built, Blackwood used nearly the whole of the tract for a pasture.”
Another witness testified that he came to said town of Hortonia in October, 1853, and first became acquainted with the tract claimed by Latte, he thought, in February, 1854. “ Blackwood then came to me» and said that tract of land was left in his care by Latte, and that if I would help him fence it we would occupy it together as pasture land. We fenced it the latter part of February and the fore part of March, perhaps, 1854. We made a tree fence, so that, with Blackwood’s fence and the mill pond, it was nearly all inclosed. * * The next summer we used the whole land for pasture.” Several other witnesses testified to substantially the same facts.
As to the notoriety of Lake’s claim of ownership, etc., one witness testified: “ It was generally known here in 1852 that Lake owned tlie land. There were but few inhabitants here then, and I think they all knew that the land was Lake's, because it was called Lake's land.” Another said: “In the winter of 1851-2 Lake claimed to have bought the land and to be the owner of it. Ever since that winter or the following spring, the land has been in the actual occupancy of Lake or somebody.” Another said: “It was generally known and understood around here that Lake had purchased and owned the land ; from the winter of 1852 it went by the- name of Lake's land.” Several others testified in the same manner.
In reference to the occupancy of the sixty acres claimed by Palmer, the evidence was that a small tract, three-fourths of an acre or an acre, adjoining the public road, was cleared before 1851, and surrounded with a pole fence, and that one Thompson who lived on an adjoining tract, had charge of this land in 1853 and 1854, either as the agent or tenant of Silas Palmer. Thompson testifies: “ I occupied the clearing on the Palmer tract during the season of 1853. * * Silas and Edward Palmer were at my hotise I should think in December, 1853. My son Henry went out hunting with them, and when he returned told me that Palmer wanted me to take charge of that tract and not let the timber be stolen ; I then went on and cut some wood off of it. Kelsey came on in the spring, and I let him have the clearing to plant beans on. I worked with him on the place. I kept watch of the land until it was sold. We got wood off of it, and kept the pine timber from being stolen. It remained in my charge until 1855. * * I cultivated the clearing for two or three years, commencing with 1853. I had beans on it for the summer of 1853. * * No one lived on the land in 1854.” Henry Thompson, son of the previous witness, testified to the same facts. The testimony of Mr. Kelsey, above mentioned, show that his occupancy of the clearing did not commence until several months after tlie date of the mortgage in suit. Silas D. Palmer testified that in the spring of 1852 he rented the premises to Thompson, who was already “in possession” of them; and that from that time until witness sold the. premises to Edward E. Palmer, in 1857, Thompson was “in the actual and continued possession” of them as his tenant. Edrnard F. Palmer also testified that in 1852 or 1858 he was present at an interview between Ms brother Silas and Thompson, at which the land was rented to the latter. There was also testimony, similar to that above recited in reference to the Lake tract, to show that in 1852 and thereafter it was generally understood in the neighborhood that this land belonged to Silas D. Palmer.
The court found that, when the mortgage in suit was made, the defendant Lake and the grantor of the defendant Palmer were “in the open, visible, exclusive and unambiguous possession ” of the tracts claimed by them respectively, and rendered judgment that the mortgage be released as against them; and the plaintiff appealed.
Hudd & Wigman, for appellant,
contended, 1. That a title hostile to that of the mortgagor could not be adjudicated, though litigated, in this action. The judgment should have been so framed, perhaps, as to protect the respondents from a writ of restitution in this action, dismissing it as to them ; but it could not give affirmative relief. Wickes v. Lake, 21 Wis. 410; Supervisors of Iowa Go. v. Mineral Pt. II. P. Go., 24 id. 93. 2. Purchaser for a valuable consideration, without notice, who' first puts his conveyance on record, is protected. 11 Met. 244 ; 3 Pick. 149 ; 17 Wis. 241; 20 id. 106 ; Ely v. Wilcox, id. 523. 3. As to the nature of the possession which constitutes. notice to a purchaser, see Butler v. Stevens, 26 Me. 484; Bell v. Twilight, 2 Poster, 500; Wright v. Wood, 11 Harris, 130 ; Martin v. Jackson, 3 Casey, 504; MoMechen v. Griffmg, 3 Pick. 149 ; Holmes v. Stout, 3 Green’s Ch. 492; 2 Stockt. 419; Patten v. Moore, 32 N. H. 384.
Duncan E. Qameron (with Geo. II. Myers, of counsel), for respondents,
contended that a'purchaser, having notice or information sufficient to put him upon inquiry, if he fails to make such inquiry, is chargeable with notice of all he might have learned. Willard’s Eq. 249 ; 1 Story’s Eq. Jur. § 396; 5 N. H. 188; 32 id. 384; 8 id. 269 ; 1 Johns. Ch. 267, 299 ; 4 id. 46 ; 4 Mass. 639 ; 20. Wis. 523. As to the kind of possession which constitutes notice, they cited, also, Poor v. Horton, 15 Barb. 485 ; Doolittle v. Tice, 41 id. 183 ; Stewart n. Mc-Sweeny, 14 Wis. 468; 14 Wend. 239.
This seems to refer to the fence described in the text, by another witness, as a “tree fence,” which was not built until after the date of the mortgage in suit.

Opinion:
Cole, J.
There would not seem to be any serious difficulty in affording proper relief to LaTce and Palmer in this action, if it appears that they were the equitable owners of the mortgaged premises when the mortgage was executed, and had such possession as would operate as notice to the mortgagee or his assignee of their title. That there was a mistake in the description of the land in each of the conveyances executed by John McCune to his sisters is established by the most satisfactory evidence. The mortgaged premises embraced in.the mortgage of Eliza should have been conveyed to Jane. She was really the owner of the land, John having entered it for her and as her agent. John, in violation of his trust, as it may fairly be assumed, entered the land in his own name, instead of that of his principals ; and hence the mistake • on his part. But he states that he deeded to Eliza the land entered for Jane, and his testimony is corroborated by all the evidence in the cause. This mistake', therefore, in the deed from John McCune to Jane McCune, having been established by the most conclusive evidence, there would not seem to be any valid objection to declaring the mortgage void as against the premises in question, unless the mortgagee or his assignee is entitled to protection as a subsequent purchaser for valuable consideration without notice of these equitable adverse claims. Was there, then, such possession of the premises, and such acts of ownership exercised over them by those claiming under Jane, as would amount to constructive notice of their rights to the subsequent mortgagee ? We are inclined to think there was.
It appears that the land in controversy was situated in' a new and heavily timbered country, where there were but few settlements. As early as 1849 or 1850, parties claiming under Jane McCune went into the actual possession of the land, and chopped and cleared small pieces on each tract now belonging to Lalce and Palmer. In December, 1851, the defendant Lalce bought a hundred acres of tlie land, took possession of the same, and commenced chopping and clearing it up. At the time, there was about three-fourths of an acre cleared and fenced. He chopped on the land until the spring of 1852, when he left it and went east. At the time he left, he leased the land by parol to one Blackwood, who was to use the three-fourths of an acre that was fenced, and was to clear up the two and a half acres that had been chopped.. Blackwood occupied the land as tenant of Lalce up to the time the mortgage was given, clearing up what had been chopped, inclosing it in a fence, and using it for raising turnips and potatoes, ahd for pasturing. The facts in .regard to the isossession of the sixty acre Palmer tract are very much the same as those relating to the Lake tract. There was a. clearing upon it of three-fourths of an acre, which was inclosed in a fence. One Thompson cultivated this clearing for two or three years,- commencing with 1853, as tenant of Palmer, and had charge of the land generally. It was well understood among the settlers of the country that Lake claimed to own one of these tracts, and Palmer the other, from 1851 or 1852. Thus both tracts were actually occupied and cultivated by the tenants of Lake and Palmer, as far as they were cleared, when the mortgage was given by Eliza McCnne to the railroad company. And the question is, Was there not such a visible, open and notorious possession, and occupancy of each tract as would put a purchaser upon inquiry as to the character of the claim asserted in virtue of such possession ? We think there was.
In Ely v. Wilcox (20 Wis. 524) the rule was laid down, that possession, to be notice, must be open, visible, exclusive, and unambiguous, not liable to be misunderstood or misconstrued. Now, it seems to us that the facts of this case bring it fully within the rule here stated. For what more notorious, open, visible and unambiguous acts of possession and ownership can be manifested over real estate, than by chopping, clearing up, fencing and actually cultivating between two and three acres of heavily timbered land? True, the number of acres is not large, yet it will cost as much time, labor and money to chop and clear up three acres of heavily timbered land, and make it fit for cultivation, as it will to make large improvements on the prairie. The possession and cultivation of a large inclosed field on the prairie, by raising wheat upon it, would not naturally be more observed by the public, -or create a stronger presumption of notice, than such an improvement in tbe woods. . And it is very plain that such unambiguous acts of ownership over land will never be confounded with mere acts of trespass. They are not liable to any such misconstruction. Considering the condition of the country, that it was sparsely settled and but a little cleared up, the clearing, fencing and cultivating one, two or three acres are such decided acts of ownership as will not fail to attract the notice of the public, as it seems they did in this case, and are of such a character to- be notice to a purchaser. Such improvements, under the circumstances, are open, visible, notorious and unambiguous, and are as striking evidence' of the continued and complete possession of the land by the party who makes them, as can well be imagined. Por we do not understand the rule to be, that a person must actually reside upon the land, to make his possession notice. He may actually improve and cultivate it, and perform decided acts of ownership over it, without residing upon it. He may cultivate and improve it by a tenant; for the possession of the tenant is his possession. But here there were actual, visible and substantial improvements made, which would cost considerable labor and money to make them; land was cleared up, fenced and cultivated, and the occupation and possession were as notorious and exclusive as could have' existed, unless Lalce and Palmer had actually resided upon their several tracts. The occupation and possession were undoubtedly sufficient to constitute adverse possession under the statutes of 1849 (section 9, chap. 127, E. S. 1849); and we think they were so distinct and unequivocal in their character as to put a.subsequent purchaser upon inquiry, and to operate as' notice. We have examined a great number of decisions upon the question as to what must be the particular acts of ownership, what the use/ cultivation and improvement, to make the occupation and possession notice to subsequent purchasers; and we think the weight of authority supports our conclusion that Lalce and. Palmer had such open, visible, notorious and unambiguous possession in this case as to be notice to the mortgagee of their rights.
The judgment of the circuit court must therefore be affirmed.