Beeler v. Sims

Citations

• 91 Kan. 757
• 139 P. 371
• 1914 Kan. LEXIS 115

Syllabus

<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>Abstract of Title — Does Not Show Marketable Title — Not Cured by Affidavits. An abstract of title discloses the following facts: The title was in W. on March 25, 1889, when he conveyed the land to H. On March 28, 1890, H. conveyed it to D., and D. conveyed it to P. on May 31, 1893. These three deeds were recorded on June 13, 1893. A judgment of foreclosure and sale upon a mortgage was rendered April 28, 1890, in an action commenced March 3, 1890, against W. and wife and a former owner of the land who had made the mortgage. A sheriff’s deed was made to R. on April 7, 1891. The plaintiff holds title through mesne conveyances from R. No conveyance is shown from P., and neither H. nor D. were parties to the foreclosure. It is held: (1) That the abstract does not show a good merchantable title in the plaintiff, although affidavits are attached to it in which it is stated that no one had been in possession for the twenty years next before October 14, 1912, except R. and a tax-title holder; and although it also shows the issuance of the tax deed in August, 1893, and a conveyance of that title to the plaintiff, but does not set out the deed or its substance or any abstract or statement of the tax proceedings. (2) While incidental matters of intestacy, heirship and the satisfaction of claims against an estate not probated, may, in a proper case, as in Van Gundy v. Shexoey, 90 Kan. 253, 133 Pac. 720, be shown by affidavits upon an abstract of title, yet where the abstract shows an outstanding title in fee, the validity of which depends upon matters of fact concerning- actual notice, possession and limitation, a purchaser ought not to be required to. accept affidavits relating to such matters.</p>