Case Name: FARES v. URBAN
Court: Utah Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Utah
Decision Date: 1915-07-03
Citations: 46 Utah 609
Docket Number: No. 2718
Parties: FARES v. URBAN.
Judges: STRAUP, C. J., and McCARTY, J., concur.
Reporter: Utah Reports
Volume: 46
Pages: 609–615

Head Matter:
FARES v. URBAN.
No. 2718.
Decided July 3, 1915.
On Application for Rehearing August 5, 1915
(151 Pac. 57).
1. Appeal and Error — Question op Pact — Quieting Title. A suit under Comp. Laws 1907, Sec. 3511, to quiet title to land, tried as a suit in equity because of the failure of either party to demand a jury, must he considered as a suit in equity by the court on appeal, so far as consideration of the evidence is concerned. (Page 611.)
2. Adverse Possession — Acquisition op Title — Payment op Taxes. Title by adverse possession cannot he established unless the adverse claim is supported by the payment of all taxes assessed against the property for the statutory period. (Page 612.)
3. Adverse Possession — Acquisition op Title — Payment op Taxes. A plaintiff suing to quiet title to a parcel fifty by seventy-five feet in a city, and relying on title by adverse possession, does not show payment of taxes by introducing tax receipts describing a tract as “50x75 feet, Heber avenue,” where either he or his wife claimed to own property adjoining the property in controversy. (Page 612.)
4. Quieting Title — Appeal—Harmless Error. Where plaintiff suing to 'quiet title did not prove any title either in law or in equity, error in finding for defendant on insufficient evidence of title, or in permitting defendant to set up an additional title in supplemental answer, is harmless. (Page 612.)
On Application for Rehearing.
5. Improvements — Compensation — Srarutory Provisions. Under Comp. Laws 1907, Secs. 2021, 2022, providing that, where an occupant of real estate has color of title thereto, and in good faith has made improvements thereon, and. is afterwards, in a proper action, found not to be the owner, no execution shall issue to put plaintiff in possession until disposition of a petition for the ascertainment of the value of the real estate and of the improvements, an occupying claimant, finally adjudged not to be the owner, may, after disposition of his appeal adverse to him, file his petition in the trial court to ascertain the value of the improvements made by him. (Page 613.)
Appeal from District Court, Third District; Hon. N C. Loofbowrow, Judge.
Action by Joseph Fares against Rachel Urban.
Judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appeals.
Modified AND affirmed.
Evans, Evans & Eolland for appellant.
Snyder & Snyder for respondent.
RESPONDENT’S POINTS.
Until plaintiff, by some act, showed an intention to claim the land adversely by paying taxes on it, by a description that would apprize the owner of such intention, he is, under our statute, presumed to be in subordination to the legal title. (Comp. L. of Utah, 1907, Sec. 2861; Sheppick v. Sheppick, 44 Utah 131, 138 Pac. 1169.) “The law presumes that the owner of the legal title is in the constructive possession, and entitled to the actual possession.” (Gibson v. McGurrin, 37 Utah 158; Ives v. Grange, 42 Utah 608, 134 Pac. 619.) The burden is upon the plaintiff to show an adverse possession of the precise land in controversy and all of it, for the statutory period of seven years. (Needham v. Salt Lake City, 7 U. 319; Smith v. North Canyon Water Co., 16 U. 194; Funk v. Ander-son22 U. 238; Center Creek Irrigation Co. v. Lindsay, 21 U. 192; Dignan v. Nelson, 26 U. 186; English v. Openshaw, 28 U. 241; By. Co. v. Investment Co., 35 U. 528.) It seems settled by good authority under similar or identical statutes that when the owner of the record title pays the taxes, a payment by the adverse claimant is unavailing. (N. P. By. Co. v. Lit-tlejohn, 198 Fed. 700; Com. National Bank v. Schlitz (Cal.), 91 Pac. 750; Carpenter v. Lewis, 119 Cal. 18, 50 Pac. 925.) It would seem to follow that if it is important who paid first, the burden is upon the adverse claimant to show that he paid first.' All presumptions are in favor of the holder of the legal title. (Evans v. Welch, 29 Colo. 355, 64, 68 Pac. 776, 9; Fleming v. Howell, 125 Pac. 551.)
Gibson v. McGurrin, 37 Utah, 158, 106 Pac. 669.

Opinion:
FRICK, J.
The plaintiff commenced this action against the defendant pursuant to Comp. Laws 1907 section 3511, to quiet the title to a parcel of land 50x75 feet in Park City, Summit County, Utah. The complaint is quite brief, and is in the usual form in such actions. The defendant answered the complaint, also claiming title to the westerly 25x75 feet of the property in question by adverse possession. She subsequently, over plaintiff's objection, was perimtted to file a supplemental answer in which she also claimed title by a deed of conveyance to the 25x75 feet, and at the trial produced said deed, and thereunder claimed title from the grantee of the original patentee. The plaintiff neither pleaded nor proved a record title, but relied upon his claim of adverse possession. The court to whom the case was submitted made findings of fact and conclusions of law in favor of the defendant. A judgment quieting the title to the 25x75 feet claimed by her was accordingly entered, and the plaintiff appeals.
Primarily, defendant's counsel contend that we cannot consider appellant's assignments relating to the sufficiency of the evidence, for the reason that the action, although denominated equitable,, is nevertheless one at law, for the reason that it is, in legal' effect, an action in ejectment. It is argued, therefore, that we are bound by the court's findings, unless there is an entire lack of evidence in support of any material finding. The question respecting the right of a party to sue in ejectment or under section 3511, supra, was considered and decided contrary to counsel's contention in Gibson v. McGurrin, 37 Utah, 158, 106 Pac. 669. As is there intimated, if either party desires to exercise his right to a jury trial, he must demand a jury as required by our statute, and if he fail to do that at the proper time and in the proper manner, and if he try the case as an action in equity, the case must be considered as such by us.
Proceeding, therefore, to a consideration of appellant's assignments, we remark that they practically all relate to the findings of fact. It is insisted that the court erred in its findings of fact, for the reason that the evidence does not support the findings. It is needless to set forth the evidence except to say that the appellant did not attempt to establish a record title to any part of the 50x75 feet claimed by him, but relied entirely upon his claim of adverse possession and the payment of taxes for the period required by our statute. Under our statute title by adverse possession cannot be established unless the adverse claim is supported by the payment of all taxes that are assessed against the particular property claimed for the period prescribed by the statute. Now, in this case appellant wholly failed to prove that he paid the taxes on the particular 50x75 feet claimed by him for the time required by the statute. In that regard the only description of the land now claimed by appellant as given in the tax receipts produced by him in evidence is as follows: "50x75 feet, Heber avenue." The evidence conclusively shows that either appellant or his wife claimed to own property adjoining the aforesaid 50x75 feet on the east, and hence the tax receipts introduced are of little, if any, significance. This is made more apparent still from the fact that it is made to appear from the evidence that respondent also had tax receipts which she claimed referred to the same property, that is, to the west half of said 50x75 feet, in which the description is just as vague and uncertain as it is in appellant's receipts.
Appellant thus failed to prove title by adverse possession, and, since he also failed to prove any other title, the court was clearly justified in finding against his claim of title. Then, agaip, appellant's right of possession as well as possession were disputed, and the evidence upon that phase of the case is not only sufficient to justify a finding against his claim of adverse possession, but we think the finding is in accordance with the weight of the evidence. If it were conceded, therefore, that respondent had failed to prove a good title, or that the court had erred, as claimed by appellant, in permitting her to set up an additional title in her supplemental answer, yet it must also be conceded that her title is certainly good as against appellant, since he established no valid claim or title, either in law or in equity, and for that reason also any error the court may have committed in the particular just stated could not have affected, and did not affect any of his rights.
The judgment therefore should be, and it accordingly is, at firmed, with costs to respondent.
STRAUP, C. J., and McCARTY, J., concur.