Court Opinion

ID: 9832268
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:46:39.217629+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:44.958369
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
We have concluded, upon further consideration, that the facts of this case, so far as they relate to the circumstances tending to show a purchase for value and without notice of the senior conveyance to Smythe, cannot be distinguished from those which controlled the Supreme Court in disposing of the case of Plolland v.' Nance, above referred to. While the conditions are different in the respects pointed out in the original opinion, the difference is not such as to destroy the probative force of material circumstances from which a purchase for value and without notice might have been inferred. The evidence shows that for more than 70 years those claiming under the Smythe conveyance, made in 1846, asserted no title to the land and undertook to exercise no acts of ownership over it. The evidence further shows that during all that time those claiming under the junior conveyance to Donaldson did assert title, and a part of the time took active steps towards protecting the land from trespassers. There is nothing to indicate that their claim was less than what it purported to be — title to the entire interest. It further appears without dispute that those who could have testified to the bona fides of the purchase from Hotchkiss, the common source, were dead; and the only method by which the appellants can now establish those essential facts is by resort to tire circumstances attending the conveyance and the subsequent claims of the parties. While the circumstances relied on are not conclusive evidence of those essentials required to establish the appellants’ title, they are such that the jury might take into consideration in determining that issue.
For the reasons stated .we feel that justice requires that this case be reversed, and the cause remanded for another trial, and it is accordingly so ordered.