Pleasant Grove City v. Crease

Utah Supreme Court

Pleasant Grove City v. Crease

266 P.2d 1019, 1 Utah 2d 352, 1954 Utah LEXIS 128

CourtUtah Supreme Court

DecidedFebruary 17, 1954

DocketNo. 7874

StatusPublished

This text of 266 P.2d 1019 (Pleasant Grove City v. Crease) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Utah Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Pleasant Grove City v. Crease, 266 P.2d 1019, 1 Utah 2d 352, 1954 Utah LEXIS 128 (Utah 1954).

Pincite

Opinion

WOLFE, Chief Justice.

This action was commenced by the respondent, Pleasant Grove City, to quiet title to a four rod strip of land which it claimed to be a public street of that city. The appellants, owners of property abutting that strip, counterclaimed to have title thereto quieted in them. The trial court held that the city had failed to establish its ownership to the strip but also denied relief to the appellants on their counterclaim.

A detailed statement of the facts would serve no purpose here. Suffice it to say that the appellants and their predecessors in title have been in possession of the disputed strip since about the year 1869. Appellants claim title under warranty deeds which purport to convey to them the strip in dispute. The case is before us solely on the findings of fact and conclusions of law made by the lower court, and there is nothing therein which apprises us of the basis for its conclusion that the city had failed to establish its ownership. Having so concluded, however, the trial court erred in not quieting title in the appellants inasmuch as they were in possession under color of title.

In Pender v. Bird, Utah, 224 P.2d 1057, a similar situation was presented. The plaintiff claimed title under a deed which we held conveyed nothing. The defendant Bird was in possession claiming title under a tax title which this court assumed to be defective. We held that the defendant Bird being in possession under color of title was entitled to a decree quieting title against the plaintiff who had no vestige of title. Reliance was placed upon Campbell v. Union Savings & Investment Co., 63 Utah 366, 226 P. 190, 193, where this court held that the title of [354]*354plaintiff who is in possession, however defective it may be, “is nevertheless ample to withstand the assaults of the defendant so long as the defendant shows no right, title or interest whatever in the property.”

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded with instructions to make conclusions of law and enter judgment in favor of the appellants. Costs to the appellants.

McDonough, henriod and wade, JJ., concur. CROCKETT, J., concurs in the result.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

WOLFE, Chief Justice.

This action was commenced by the respondent, Pleasant Grove City, to quiet title to a four rod strip of land which it claimed to be a public street of that city. The appellants, owners of property abutting that strip, counterclaimed to have title thereto quieted in them. The trial court held that the city had failed to establish its ownership to the strip but also denied relief to the appellants on their counterclaim.

A detailed statement of the facts would serve no purpose here. Suffice it to say that the appellants and their predecessors in title have been in possession of the disputed strip since about the year 1869. Appellants claim title under warranty deeds which purport to convey to them the strip in dispute. The case is before us solely on the findings of fact and conclusions of law made by the lower court, and there is nothing therein which apprises us of the basis for its conclusion that the city had failed to establish its ownership. Having so concluded, however, the trial court erred in not quieting title in the appellants inasmuch as they were in possession under color of title.

In Pender v. Bird, Utah, 224 P.2d 1057, a similar situation was presented. The plaintiff claimed title under a deed which we held conveyed nothing. The defendant Bird was in possession claiming title under a tax title which this court assumed to be defective. We held that the defendant Bird being in possession under color of title was entitled to a decree quieting title against the plaintiff who had no vestige of title. Reliance was placed upon Campbell v. Union Savings & Investment Co., 63 Utah 366, 226 P. 190, 193, where this court held that the title of [354]*354plaintiff who is in possession, however defective it may be, “is nevertheless ample to withstand the assaults of the defendant so long as the defendant shows no right, title or interest whatever in the property.”

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded with instructions to make conclusions of law and enter judgment in favor of the appellants. Costs to the appellants.

McDonough, henriod and wade, JJ., concur. CROCKETT, J., concurs in the result.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

266 P.2d 1019, 1 Utah 2d 352, 1954 Utah LEXIS 128, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pleasant-grove-city-v-crease-utah-1954.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack