Reynolds v. Willard

California Supreme Court Sep 26, 1889 No. No. 12997Published

Before: Works

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. A party claiming title by adverse possession bears the burden of proving the payment of all taxes levied and assessed against the property, and payment of taxes on different land under a mistaken belief of ownership does not satisfy this requirement. While it is error to instruct that taxes must be paid for a period prior to the enactment of the tax-payment statute, such error is harmless if the statutory period for adverse possession was not met before the law took effect.

Issues

Whether the burden of proof regarding the levy, assessment, and payment of taxes lies with the party claiming adverse possession.
Whether payment of taxes on land other than the disputed property, under a mistaken belief of ownership, satisfies the statutory requirement for adverse possession.
Whether an instruction requiring tax payment for a period prior to the enactment of the tax-payment statute constitutes reversible error.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The defendant was bound to prove under the statute that he actually paid for taxes on the land in controversy. It was not sufficient for him to show that he paid on other lands, supposing it to include the lands in dispute.”

Synopsis

Ejectment—Statute of Limitations — Adverse Possession—Payment of Taxes—Presumption — Burden of Proof — Findings.—When the plaintiff in an action of ejectment proves a paper title, his case is made out; and if the defendant relies upon adverse possession under the statute of limitations, he must prove either that no taxes were levied and assessed upon the land, or that he paid all taxes which were levied and assessed thereon. In the absence of such proof by defendant, it must be presumed that the assessor did his duty, and that the property in controversy had been assessed for taxes, and the court should find that the taxes thereon had been levied and assessed, and that defendant had not paid the same. (Thornton, J., and McFarland, J., dissenting.)

Id, — Payment of Taxes Prior to 1878 — Instruction — Harmless Error. — A defendant is not bound to prove payment of taxes, to constitute adverse possession prior to 1878; but if the proof shows no such possession as was protected by the statute of limitations, an instruction that the defendant must have paid all taxes assessed on the land is a harmless error.

Id.—Actual Payment of Taxes — Belief of Defendant.—The defendant is bound to prove under the statute that he actually paid the taxes on the land in controversy. It is not sufficient for him to show that he paid taxes on other lands, supposing them to include the lands in dispute.

Works, J. Action of ejectment. Defense, adverse possession. Trial by jury, and verdict for plaintiff. Judgment accordingly. Motion for new trial denied. Defendant appeals.

There was evidence tending to show that the land in controversy was held adversely by the defendant from August, 1882, until the commencement of this action, September 22, 1887, but there is other evidence tending to show that this possession was not continuous, but was interrupted by a third party taking and holding possession for a part of one year, and cultivating and growing a crop on the land. There was also some evidence slightly tending to show that the defendant’s adverse possession commenced as early as 1874. The court instructed the jury that, in order to make out his defense of adverse possession, the defendant must have proved the payment by him of all taxes levied and assessed against the land.

The appellant contends that this instruction was erroneous, for two reasons: 1. Because there was no evidence that any taxes had been levied or assessed against the land; 2. As the evidence tended to show that the land was held adversely prior to the enactment of the statute requiring payment of taxes, it was error to instruct that all taxes must have been paid by the defendant, including the time prior to the enactment of the statute.

As to the first of these, counsel claim, on the authority of Ross v. Evans, 65 Cal. 439, and McNoble v. Justiniano, 70 Cal. 396, that the burden was upon the plaintiff to show that taxes had been levied and assessed against the property, and that in the absence of such proof the defendant was not called upon for any evidence on the subject. The cases cited do not support this contention, nor do we believe it to be the correct rule. The plaintiff made out his case by showing a paper title to the property. The defendant, in support of his claim of title by adverse possession, was bound to prove every [607]fact necessary to show such possession for the requisite time, including the payment of taxes, if any had been levied and assessed. If taxes had been levied and assessed, he should have proved the fact, and also that he had paid the same. If none had been levied and assessed, he should have proved that fact as a reason for not making payment. Having failed to make such proof, it cannot be presumed in aid of his possession that no taxes had been levied and assessed.

Neither of the cases relied upon by the appellant are in conflict with this view of the law. McNoble v. Justiniano has no bearing on the question. Ross v. Evans related to the findings of the court, and not to the evidence. In that case the court below found that the taxes had not been paid, but failed to find that any had been levied and assessed, and this court held, very properly, that the findings were defective in this respect.

Reynolds v. Willard

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief