Baker v. Oakwood

The findings of the court below are to the effect that, upon the death of Charles B. Hargin in 1840, the undivided quarter of the lands in question descended to his three children, of whom the plaintiff is one, subject to the widow’s dower. By the subsequent death of two of the children, without issue and intestate, the estate which the ancestor had at the time of his death became vested in the plaintiff ' as the surviving child, subject to a life estate in two of these shares in the widow. But it is also found that since 1849, when Lucy Maria Baynor purchased the whole farm from Hovey, and went into possession, the whole premises have been held adversely, first by Mrs. Baynor under her deed, and since 1859, by the defendant under its conveyance from Mrs. Baynor. The heirs of Hargin became tenants in common with the other owners, and the findings of adverse possession implies that the possession of Mrs. Baynor was such as to amount to an ouster of her co-tenants. .Whatever may be said in regard to the nature of Mrs. Baynor’s possession, whether hostile or not, there can be no doubt that the possession of the defendant from the time that- it purchased the land in 1859 to the time of the commencement of this action was of such a character as to justify the conclusion that it commenced in an ouster of the heirs. It was the case of the purchase by a public corporation, organized in perpetuity, of lands to be devoted to the burial of the dead, followed by enclosing, improving and laying out the land in such manner

But the doctrine of the English courts, giving construction to the Statute of James, does not seem to have been followed in this state. It .is true that Judge Cowen, in the course of a long and able opinion in the case of Humbert v. Trinity Church ( 24 Wend. 587 ), remarked that it was of the nature of the Statute of Limitations, when- applied to civil actions,, “ to mature a wrong into a right by cutting off the remedy ; ” and, again, when speaking of actions brought by the true owner after the bar of the statute, “ his title remains, but he has lost his remedy.” The question in that case was whether the long-continued adverse possession of the defendant barred the plaintiff’s action, and it was held rightly that it did. The effect of an adverse possession as a means of acquiring title was not, however, involved in the case. The doctrine that a Statute of Limitations merely extinguishes the remedy has been frequently applied to contract obligations. As thus applied, the principle cannot be disputed. Time may bar an action upon the promise or contract, but it does not pay the debt. That remains as a moral obligation at least, and is a good consideration for a new promise. Adverse possession of tangible property implies not only the lapse of' time, but the occupation and enjoyment by the possessor, and the acquiescence of the true owner in a hostile claim of title. The idea that the title to property can survive the loss of every remedy known to the law for reducing it to possession and enjoyment would seem to have but small support in logic or reason. Enactments which are appropriately termed statutes of repose when applied to the adverse possession of land, have, as it seems to us, a broader and deeper effect than simply to destroy the remedy of the true owner for its recovery.

The case of Cahill v. Palmer ( 45 N. Y. 478 ) was an action to recover money paid to the defendant for certain lands taken for Central Park. Both parties claimed to own -the land for which the money was paid by the city. A statute provided that when the money was paid to the wrong person the real owner of the land might bring and maintain an action to-recover it from the party to whom paid. The plaintiff had the paper title to the land, and the defendant, to whom the money was paid, showed an adverse possession for more than twenty years prior to the time the land was taken by the city. This court held that the money was properly paid to the defendant and that the plaintiff could not recover. Grover, J., referring to the point now under consideration said: “ The counsel for the appellant insists that an adverse possession, although for the length of time required by statute to-bar the owner, is available only as a defense to a suit brought, by such owner for the recovery of the land. In this the counsel is in error. When the possession is actual, exclusive,

In Barnes v. Light ( 116 N. Y. 34 ), it was held that an action of ejectment, founded upon adverse possession alone, may be maintained by the party in whose favor the adverse possession has run, even against the true owner. This case was decided mainly upon the authority of Sherman v. Kane ( 86 N. Y. 58 ); Carleton v. Darcy (90 id. 566); Mayor, etc., v. Carleton (113 id. 284), in all of which the principle is recognized that title may be obtained by adverse possession alone.

In Millard v. McMullin ( 68 N. Y. 345 ) it is held that such a title is sufficient to uphold the lien of an execution. A ■clear adverse possession for twenty years constitutes a title, which a purchaser at a judicial sale may not refuse. (Seymour v. DeLancey, 1 Hopk. Ch. 436 ; Mott v. Mott, 68 N. Y. 246 ; Shriver v. Shriver, 86 id. 575 ; O'Connor v. Huggins, 113 id. 511.)

The Supreme Court of the United States has repeatedly asserted the recognized rule of the Roman law that adverse possession is one of the modes of acquiring title to property. In Campbell v. Holt ( 115 U. S. 620 ), Mr. Justice Miller, delivering the opinion of the court, said: “ By the long and undisturbed possession of tangible property, real or personal, one may acquire a title to it, or ownership, superior in law to that of another, who may be able to prove an antecedent and, at one time, paramount title. This superior or antecedent

The principle has also the sanction of two eminent authors on the law of limitations. Judge Cooley, in his recent work referring to this question, says: “ When the period prescribed by statute has once run so as to cut off the remedy which one might have had for the recovery of property in the possession of another, the title to the property, irrespective of the original right, is regarded in the law as vested in the possessor, who is-entitled to the same protection in respect to it which the-

In the other treatise on this subject, which is of highest authority, it is said: “As a general doctrine, it has too .long been established to be now in the least degree controverted, that what the law deems a perfect possession, if continued without interruption during the whole period which is prescribed by the statute for the enforcement of the right of entry, is evidence of a fee. Independently of positive or statute law, the possession supposes an acquiescence in all persons claiming an adverse interest, and upon this acquiescence is founded the presumption of the existence of some substantial-reason (though perhaps not known) for which the claim of an adverse interest was forborne, blot only every legal presumption, but every consideration of public policy, requires that this evidence of right should he taken to be very strong, if not of conclusive force.” (Angelí on Lim. chap. 31, 373.) The same learned author seems to treat prescription and adverse possession, so far as this question is concerned, as practically the same thing. (Id. chaps. 1, 2.)

These authorities, and others that might he cited, show that title to an estate in land may be acquired by one and lost by another by means of adverse possession. This principle has become a rule of property that cannot now be disturbed without grave injury to titles. There is no.serious claim that the plaintiff can recover the share which she took direct from her 'father, and as to the other, two shares the plaintiff’s remainders are limited upon her mother’s life estate which the defendant has absorbed in its adverse possession, and is not yet tenni

The judgment should be affirmed.

All concur except Andrews, J., taking no part, and Gray, J., not voting.

Judgment affirmed.