Court Opinion

ID: 7812049
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-09-07 17:13:56.298259+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:30:30.031336
License: Public Domain

McCulloch, C. J. Appellant instituted an action in the circuit court of Crittenden County to recover possession of an undivided half interest in a tract of land in that county, title to which appellant claims as tenant in common of appellees. The statute of limitation was pleaded as one of the defenses, and the cause was transferred to the chancery court on motion of appellees, apparently without objection on the part of appellant; at least there is no objection urged here. The facts are undisputed with respect to the origin of the title asserted by the respective parties. The land in controversy was originally owned and actually occupied as a farm by William F. Beattie, who died intestate and without issue in the year 1881, leaving surviving his father, Madison Beattie, and sister and brother, Mary B. McKinney and George A. O. Beattie, respectively. The land was a new acquisition, and under the statutes of this State (Crawford & Moses’ Digest, § 3480) ascended to his father, Madison Beattie, for life, and then descended in remainder to the collateral kindred of the intestate. Immediately after the death of William F. Beattie, his father, Madison Beattie, took possession of the land and occupied it until he died on July 31, 1885, leaving a last will and testament, by which he undertook to devise the whole of the land to his son, George A. C. Beattie. The will of Madison Beattie was probated in Virginia, where he resided, and also in Crittenden County, Arkansas, and his son, George A. C. Beattie, immediately took possession of the land and occupied it until his death in the year 1919. The appellees are the children and only heirs at law of George A. C. Beattie. According to the undisputed evidence, George A. C. Beattie was the sole occupant of the land from the time he took possession immediately after the death of his father, and he occupied it as his own and did not share the rents and profits with his sister, the appellant. She testified that she made no claim to the land for the reason that she believed, until after the death of her brother, George A. C. Beattie, that her father, Madison Beattie, had inherited the land in fee simple from William F., and that the title passed to George A. C. Beattie under the will of hér father. We think that the evidence justified the finding by the chancery court that the possession of the land by the father of appellees was adverse for more than the statutory period, and that such possession constituted an investiture of title. The evidence shows that the possession of George A. G. Beattie was, from the start, adverse and not in recognition, either expressly or impliedly, of the rights of any one else. It is true that, according to the testimony of appellant, both she and her brother were resting under the belief that the latter had acquired title under the will of their father, Madison Beattie, but this does not alter the fact that the possession was in fact adverse to the rights of the cotenant, and constituted in law an ouster, which put the statute of limitation in motion. We say this in full recognition of the rule that possession of one of the cotenants is possession of both, but in this case the adverse occupancy was brought home to appellant as one of the cotenants, and constituted such disseizin as put the statute of limitation in motion. The facts in the case were sufficient, we think, to completely satisfy the rule stated by this court in Singer v. Naron, 99 Ark. 446, as follows: “In order therefore for the possession of one tenant in common to be adverse to that of his cotenants, knowledge of his adverse claim must be 'brought home to them directly or by such notorious acts of an unequivocal character that notice may be presumed.” Mere ignorance on the part of appellant concerning her inheritance, or even the joint mistake of law on the part of appellant and her brother as to their respective rights to the land, did not affect the operation of the statute. Ignorance of the law, or even of facts, afford no- immunity from the operation of the statute unless the mistake is caused by fraudulent concealment or misrepresentation. McKneely v. Terry, 61 Ark. 527; Hibben v. Malone, 85 Ark. 584; Conditt v. Holden, 92 Ark. 618, 135 Am. St. 206. Finding that the court was correct in its decree in favor of appellees on the ground of the bar of the statute of limitation, it is unnecessary to discuss the other grounds upon which the decree is sought to he upheld. Affirmed.