Costello v. Muheim
Citations
- 9 Ariz. 422
- 84 P. 906
- 1906 Ariz. LEXIS 80
Syllabus
<p>1. Mines and Mining — Adverse Possession — Evidence. — Actual, visible, and continuous possession of a mine may not be held to have been initiated and maintained by one who sinks deeper by six or ten feet a shaft of unstated depth already existing thereon, and thereafter does no other act upon the property for a period of seven years, in the absence of proof that this act would naturally attract attention of the owner should he visit the premises.</p> <p>2. Same — Sufficiency.—Hostile acts relied upon to initiate adverse possession to real estate must be such as to carry with them a presumption that they would be observed by the owner, were he to visit the premises;</p> <p>3. Statutes — Interpretation.—When prior to its adoption a statute has received an interpretation by the court of last resort of the state from which it was adopted, such interpretation is adopted with the statute. »</p> <p>4. Quieting Title — Possession.—An action to quiet title does not lose its equitable features by reason of the fact that by statute its procedure has been somewhat modified and its scope enlarged, so as to permit it to be pursued by a plaintiff out of possession.</p> <p>5. Equity — Laches.—Where an equitable action is brought within the statutory time for the analogous action at law, if it does not so appear on the face of the bill, the defendant must show by his answer that extraordinary circumstances exist which require the application of the doctrine of laches.</p> <p>6. Quieting Title — Laches.—In a suit to quiet title, plaintiff is not guilty of laches as against a defendant who has been in possession for less than three years, where the only grounds for urging laches are that the plaintiff has failed to pay his taxes, or list his property for taxation, for a period of eleven years, and that the defendant, holding a void tax-deed to the property in question, has paid the taxes during the eleven years, and has within three years expended seven hundred and eighty dollars
Judges: Campbell, Kent, Naye, Sloan
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.