Court Opinion

ID: 9548272
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 18:00:55.599456+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:18:44.610757
License: Public Domain

ON REHEARING
On Petition por Eehearing
*147Lytle, Kilpatrick & Schroeder and Michael S. Mogan, Canyon City, contra.
Before Warner, Chief Justice, and Tooze, Brand and Perry, Justices.
PERRY, J.
The plaintiff by its petition for a rehearing states we erred when we cited Reeves et al. v. Porta, 173 Or 147, 144 P2d 493, as authority for our statement:
“We have often said that where title to real property is claimed by prescription it is necessary to plead and prove the elements necessary to establish the resulting transfer of title to the claimant.”
for the reason that in Du Val v. Miller, 183 Or 287, 289, 192 P2d 249, 192 P2d 992, we said:
“ ‘In a suit to quiet title it is not necessary for the complaint to divulge the chain of title, or to reveal the probative facts, but it is sufficient if it appears from the pleadings that the plaintiffs own some substantial interest which is named, and the title may be shown in any manner authorized by law: Zumwalt v. Madden, 23 Or 185 (31 Pac. 400); Cooper v. Blair, 50 Or. 394, 397 (92 Pac. 1074); Savage v. Savage, 51 Or. 167, 170 (94 Pac. 182). The allegation of ownership in fee was alone sufficient to enable proof of title by adverse possession: * * V [Mascall v. Murray, 76 Or 637, 149 P 517, 149 P 521].
The opinion cites many cases in its support and represents the general rule: Phillips on Code Pleading, § 323; 2 C. J. S., Adverse Possession, § 209, page 809; and 44 Am. Jur., Quieting Title, §79, page 63. Reeves v. Porta, 173 Or. 147, 144 P. 2d 493, Laurance v. Tucker, 160 Or 474, 85 P. 2d 374, and Anderson v. Richards, 100 Or. 641, 198 P. 570, *148contain dicta indicating that a party who acquired title by adverse possession and who prays for a decree quieting his title must allege, step by step, the means whereby he gained title. The dicta is disapproved and must be deemed withdrawn.”
A study of these opinions will show that no conflict exists when the law of each case is applied to the facts therein. Du Val v. Miller, supra, reiterates the established rule of this jurisdiction that whenever an owner of land alleges in his petition that he is the owner, he may prove his derivation of title by adverse possession, absolute conveyance, or gift; on the other hand, as in Reeves v. Porta, supra, if instead of alleging ownership a party avers his right of ownership by adverse possession, he must set forth the elements necessary to constitute such derivation of title.
The petition for rehearing is denied.