Legal Opinion

Ryan v. Woodin

Idaho Supreme Court

Decided January 25, 1904PublishedCited by 13 opinions

APPEAL from District Court of Bingham County. Honorable Joseph C. Rich, Judge. Action to set aside judgment and sheriff’s deed. Judgment for defendants. This action is not barred by the statute of limitations. “A deed fraudulently obtained is not available as the foundation of an adverse possession, because the party setting up an adverse possession must have entered Iona -fide.”

Read the full summary

APPEAL from District Court of Bingham County. Honorable Joseph C. Rich, Judge. Action to set aside judgment and sheriff’s deed. Judgment for defendants. This action is not barred by the statute of limitations. “A deed fraudulently obtained is not available as the foundation of an adverse possession, because the party setting up an adverse possession must have entered Iona -fide.” (Livingston v. Peru Iron Co., 9 Wend. 512; Packard v. Johnson (Cal.), 3 West Coast Rep. 765; Tyler on Ejectment and Adverse Possession, p. 867.) Must be actual ouster of same part of land. (Kimball v. Btormer, 65…

1Opinion of the CourtSullivan, C. J.

This action was brought to procure the cancellation of a judgment and sheriff’s deed resulting from a sale of certain real estate under execution based on the judgment in the case of Orr & Orr against Daniel Ollis in the district court of Bingham county. The complaint contains allegations of defects, irregularities and omissions in the service of summons and other proceedings prior to the judgment. It appears from the amended complaint that Daniel Ollis died on April 4, 1894, and that the appellant Ryan was appointed administrator of his estate March 4, 1899, and this suit was brought by said…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Wood v. CarpenterSupreme Court of the United States · 1879
  2. Badger v. BadgerSupreme Court of the United States · 1865
  3. Godden v. KimmellSupreme Court of the United States · 1879
  4. Williams v. BerginCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897
  5. Hobart v. Connecticut Turnpike Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1842

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Smith v. Faris-Kesl Construction Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1915
  2. Continental Oil Co. v. City of Twin FallsIdaho Supreme Court · 1930
  3. Just v. Idaho Canal & Improvement Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1909
  4. Chapin v. StewartIdaho Supreme Court · 1951
  5. Callenders, Inc. v. BeckmanIdaho Court of Appeals · 1991

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API