Court Opinion

ID: 9829624
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 19:28:59.585595+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:03.572741
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
[2] It is conceded by appellant Silliman that appellee Oliver expended approximately $21,000 in improving the land involved -and protecting the title thereto, and that throughout all the transactions he was rightfully in possession of the land. Silliman, however, sought to recover half of the property without offering to reimburse Oliver for any portion of these expenditures, which were made with Silliman’s knowledge, acquiescence, and even procurement, and without which the property would surely have been lost, since Silliman himself was absolutely helpless in the matter. We think these facts clearly put Oliver in the attitude of one who rightfully obtains possession of property by paying the debt of the legal owner, thereby discharging a lien held against the property to secure such debt. In such case the legal owner will not be permitted to recover the possession until he has reimbursed the one already rightfully in such possession. De Guerra v. De Gonzales, 232 S. W. 896, and authorities there cited. Even if every other issue in the case should be resolved in favor of Silliman, it would nevertheless be a travesty upon justice, and a violation of every principle of equity, to permit him to recover the property in dispute without first requiring him to reimburse Oliver.
With this additional suggestion, appellants and appellees’ motions for rehearing are overruled.