Sharpe v. Catron

136 P. 20, 67 Or. 368, 1913 Ore. LEXIS 197
CourtOregon Supreme Court
DecidedNovember 11, 1913
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 136 P. 20 (Sharpe v. Catron) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Oregon Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Sharpe v. Catron, 136 P. 20, 67 Or. 368, 1913 Ore. LEXIS 197 (Or. 1913).

Opinion

Mr. Justice Eakin

delivered the opinion of the court.

1, 2. The court found and the evidence discloses that ' the claim and possession of Castle was continuous, adverse, open, notorious and exclusive during all his occupancy thereof, and the statute of limitations com[371]*371menced to run against the road company from the date its selection under the grant was approved by the Department of the Interior, namely, December 19, 1879, from which date the road company was in a position to maintain ejectment against Castle: See Boe v. Arnold, 54 Or. 52 (20 Ann. Cas. 533, 102 Pac. 290), and Altschul v. Clark, 39 Or. 315 (65 Pac. 991). Such adverse possession for the period of ten years is evidence of a fee-simple title in the adverse holder. This was the holding in Joy v. Stump, 14 Or. 361 (12 Pac. 929), and followed by this court ever since, so that Castle’s title to the land was complete at the time cf his death, and passed to his heirs. The question of tacking the possession of the widow and son to the possession of Castle as an element of adverse possession is not involved, and the conveyance by the widow and son to plaintiff, even though only by a quitclaim deed, was sufficient to pass all the right, title and interest held by the grantors: Dolph v. Barney, 5 Or. 191; Baker v. Woodward, 12 Or. 3 (6 Pac. 173). In Boe v. Arnold, 54 Or. 52 (102 Pac. 290, 20 Ann. Cas. 533), the case of Altschul v. Clark, 39 Or. 315 (65 Pac. 991), is overruled, in so far as it holds that the occupant of government land claiming ownership as against all the world, except the United States, cannot claim title by adverse possession against the true owner, holding: “That one claiming title to land by adverse possession for a period of ten years as against all persons, but recognizing the' superior title of the United States government, and seeking in good faith to acquire that title, may assert such adverse possession as against any person claiming to be the owner under a prior grant. ’ ’

The judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.

Aexirmed.

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

Related

Sertic v. Roberts
136 P.2d 248 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1943)
United States v. Otley
127 F.2d 988 (Ninth Circuit, 1942)
Kirk v. Schultz
119 P.2d 266 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1941)
Phipps v. Stancliff
214 P. 335 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1924)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
136 P. 20, 67 Or. 368, 1913 Ore. LEXIS 197, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sharpe-v-catron-or-1913.