State v. Rosenquist

51 N.W.2d 767, 78 N.D. 671, 1952 N.D. LEXIS 70
CourtNorth Dakota Supreme Court
DecidedFebruary 8, 1952
DocketFile 7221
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 51 N.W.2d 767 (State v. Rosenquist) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering North Dakota Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State v. Rosenquist, 51 N.W.2d 767, 78 N.D. 671, 1952 N.D. LEXIS 70 (N.D. 1952).

Opinion

Christianson, J.

The plaintiff brought this action against Mayme Rosenquist and Divide County to determine adverse *677 claims to “all that portion of the South half (SJ) of the Southwest quarter (SW^) of Section twenty-nine (29) in Township One Hundred Sixty-three (163) North of Range Ninety-seven (97) West of the 5th P.M., and not heretofore conveyed by deeds to others by the plaintiff by and through the Board of University and School Lands.” The complaint is in the usual form in a statutory action to determine adverse claims. It alleges that the plaintiff is the owner in fee of the tract of land described in the complaint, subject to a contract of sale therefor to one Helen Anderson which contract is in good standing and in full force and effect. It further alleges that the defendants claim certain estates or interests in, or liens or encumbrances upon,, the premises, adverse to the plaintiff. Plaintiff prays that the defendants be required to set forth all their adverse claims to the .property and that the validity, superiority , and priority thereof be determined; that the same be adjudged null and void; that the defendants be decreed to have no estate or interest in, or lien or encumbranqe upon, said property; that the plaintiff’s title be quieted as to such claims and that the defendants be debarred from further asserting the same. Both defendants interposed answers. The defendant Rosenquist in her answer denies that the plaintiff is the owner in fee of all the lands described in the. complaint, and alleges that she is the owner in fee of that part “of the Southwest quarter (SWi) of section twenty-nine (29) in Township One Hundred Sixty-three .(163) North .of Range Ninety-seven (97) West in Divide County, North Dakota, described as follows: a strip or piece of land one hundred and fifty feet wide, being seventy-five feet wide on the northerly side and seventy-five feet wide on the southerly side of the center line of a proposed right of way of the Great Northern Railway Company located and established by said Railway Company extending across from the East side to the West side of said quarter section and included within that part of said' quarter section described in the complaint, also known as Auditor’s Lot number eleven (11) of Divide County, and being the premises conveyed by Alfred Erickson and Anna Erickson, his wife, to the Great Northern Railway Company by deed dated the 1st day of March, 1913, recorded in Book five (5) of Deeds-on page 19 in the office *678 of the register of deeds of Divide County, North Dakota, and containing 8.82 acres, said premises having been conveyed to the defendant, Mayme Rosenquist, by the county of Divide on the 5th day of February, 1946.” She prays judgment “that the plaintiff be excluded from any estate or interest in and to the said tract of land described in her answer” and forever debarred and enjoined from making any claim of interest therein, “and that she be adjudged the owner in fee of said tract and entitled to the immediate possession thereof.”

The defendant Divide County denies that the plaintiff is the owner of the tract of land described in the answer of the defendant Rosenquist and alleges that on March 1, 1913, Alfred Erickson, the then owner of said land, and his wife, made a deed to the Great Northern Railway Company as shown in Book 5, page 19, in the office of the Register of Deeds of Divide County,- and that on the 5th day of December, 1921, the Great Northern Railway Company conveyed the land described in the deed from Alfred Erickson and wife to the Great Northern Railway Company by deed to Dakota and Great Northern Townsite Company, which latter deed was duly recorded in the office of the Register of. Deeds for Divide County, in Book 25 at page 201. That on the 20th day of May, 1926, the Dakota and Great Northern Townsite Company conveyed the tract in question to Christ Semingson by deed which is recorded in Book 31 of Deeds at page 340 thereof in the office of the register of deeds of Divide County. That on October 2, 1940, a tax deed was executed and delivered to defendant county of Divide based upon the 1928 taxes against said tract of land, which deed was recorded in the office of the register of deeds in and for Divide County in Book 40 of Deeds at page 199 thereof. That thereafter on February 5, 1946, the said tract was conveyed to the defendant Mayme Rosenquist by deed executed by the County of Divide and recorded in the office of the Register of Deeds in and for Divide County in Book 44 of Deeds at page 496. That the plaintiff acquired title to the SWi of Section 29, Township 163 North, Range 97 West, by virtue of a sheriff’s deed issued upon the foreclosure of a mortgage which mortgage recited that there was excepted therefrom “deeded and platted parts” of *679 said SWi of Section 29 and that the mortgage upon which such sheriff’s deed had been issued did not include the tract of land described in the answer - of Mayme Eosenquist and that the plaintiff has no right or interest in or title thereto. The defendant Divide County prays that title to that part of the SWJ of said Section 29, Township 163, Eange 97, described in the am swer of said defendant, Mayme Eosenquist, be quieted in her, the rightful owner thereof, and that the plaintiff be forever debarred or enjoined from claiming any interest or title to such land.

The case was tried to the court upon the issues framed by the pleadings. The court made findings of fact and conclusions of law in favor of the defendant, Mayme Eosenquist. From the facts found the court reached the conclusion's that the plaintiff never acquired title to the said 8.82 acre tract and never had any lien thereon; that' the plaintiff being a stranger to the title to said tract, never having owned- the same or had a lien thereon, had no right to question the validity of the tax deed, or the deed to the defendant; and that the defendant, Mayme Eosenquist, is entitled to have the title to the said 8.82 acre tract quieted against all adverse claims of the plaintiff. The court ordered that judgment be entered quieting title to the said 8.82 acre tract in the defendant, Mayme Eosenquist, against all adverse claims of the plaintiff, and that the plaintiff be debarred and enjoined from asserting any claim to said premises. Judgment was entered accordingly and the plaintiff has appealed-from the judgment and demands a new trial in this court.

The material facts are not in dispute and may be stated substantially as follows: The undisputed evidence shows that Caroline Swenson acquired title to the SW| of Section 29, Township 163 North, Eange 97 "West, by patent issued to her by the United States of America and that on October 22, 1906, -said Caroline Swenson conveyed the said premises by warranty deed to Alfred Erickson and that such deed was duly recorded in the office of the Eegister of Deeds of the county in which the land was located on November 14, 1906. Thereafter the said Alfred Erickson and Anna Erickson, his wife, duly executed and delivered to the Great Northern Eailway Company a deed dated and acknowledged on March 1, 1913, which said deed • contained *680

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

Related

Nelson v. McAlester Fuel Company
2017 ND 49 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 2017)
Nodak Mutual Insurance Company v. Ward County Farm Bureau
2004 ND 60 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 2004)
Kjolsrud v. MKB Management Corp.
2003 ND 144 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 2003)
Secretary of Veterans Affairs v. Roma Food Enterprises of Florida, Inc.
840 So. 2d 1066 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2003)
Rebel v. Nodak Mutual Insurance Co.
1998 ND 194 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1998)
First SEC. Bank, Underwood, ND v. Enyart
439 N.W.2d 801 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1989)
Radspinner v. Charlesworth
369 N.W.2d 109 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1985)
Grand Forks County v. City of Grand Forks
123 N.W.2d 42 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1963)
Neset v. Rudman
74 N.W.2d 826 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1956)
Schule v. Reule
72 N.W.2d 225 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1955)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
51 N.W.2d 767, 78 N.D. 671, 1952 N.D. LEXIS 70, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-rosenquist-nd-1952.