Kline v. Wright

4 Citing cases

  1. W.C. A.N. MILLER DEV. CO. v. EMIG PROPERTIES

    134 F.2d 36 (D.C. Cir. 1943)   Cited 11 times

    Assessment in this manner would be clearly sufficient to give due notice of the assessment. As to the right of a tenant against a cotenant acquiring an outstanding title or lien, cf., e.g., Gilb v. O'Neill, 1932, 225 Ala. 92, 142 So. 397, 85 A.L.R. 1526; Kline v. Wright, D.C.E.D.Idaho 1930, 42 F.2d 927; Terrell v. Terrell, 1927, 220 Ky. 717, 295 S.W. 1016; Fleming v. Casady, 1926, 202 Iowa 1094, 211 N.W. 488, 494; Willoughby v. Brandes, 1927, 317 Mo. 544, 297 S.W. 54; Erwin v. Williams, 1942, 199 S.C. 38, 18 S.E.2d 598. The relationship is one of trust. Fleming v. Casady, supra.

  2. Pilgrim v. Grant

    9 Alaska 17 (D. Alaska 1936)   Cited 1 times

    " See, also, Rothwell v. Dewees, 2 Black 613, 67 U.S. 613, 17 L.Ed. 309; Stevens v. Grand Central Min. Co., 8 Cir. 133 F. 28, 30; Kline v. Wright, D.C., 42 F.2d 927, 928; Cedar Canyon Consol. Min. Co. v. Yarwood, 27 Wn. 271, 67 P. 749, 91 Am.St.Rep. 841. The defendants have cited the case of Hodgson v. Federal Oil Co., 274 U.S. 15, 47 S.Ct. 502, 503, 71 L.Ed. 901, 54 A.L.R. 869, to the effect that if no fiduciary relationship is shown between co-owners, or tenants in common, the rule does not apply. The case holds that this fiduciary relationship does not necessarily arise from the cotenancy.

  3. Kline v. Wright

    51 F.2d 564 (D. Idaho 1931)   Cited 2 times

    CAVANAH, District Judge. On July 31, 1930, an order of reference was made in this case pursuant to memorandum opinion [(D.C.) 42 F.2d 927] for the purpose of determining on the accounting pleaded in defendants' cross-bill what moneys, if any, were actually spent by any of the parties in the operation, improvement, and annual assessment work on the mining claims involved. The evidence, taken before the referee, discloses that certain amounts were expended by cross-complainants, who claim that they are entitled to contribution for the same from plaintiffs and interveners.

  4. Hawe v. Hawe

    89 Idaho 367 (Idaho 1965)   Cited 22 times

    A cotenant claiming title to common property by adverse possession, must bring to the remaining cotenants the knowledge that he intends to oust them and claim the whole title, either by actual notice or by positive, hostile acts which show his intent so clearly that they are equivalent to actual notice. Wood v. Henley, 88 Cal.App. 441, 263 P. 870; Yarwood v. Johnson, 29 Wn. 643, 70 P. 123; Dimmick v. Dimmick, 58 Cal.2d 417, 24 Cal.App. 856, 374 P.2d 824; Vaughn v. Hollingsworth, 35 Idaho 722, 208 P. 838; Kline v. Wright, 42 F.2d 927, D.C. Idaho; Terry v. Terry, 70 Idaho 161, 213 P.2d 906; Flora v. Gusman, 76 Idaho 188, 279 P.2d 1067. Possession with the permission of the owner is not adverse. If a grantor is to acquire title by adverse possession against his own conveyance, a disclaimer by an assertion of adverse title with notice to the owners is necessary. Hostility and adversity on the part of the grantor toward the title of the grantee must be shown. Belli v. Bonavia, 167 Cal.App.2d 275, 334 P.2d 196; McCoy v. Cover, 159 Kan. 711, 158 P.2d 380; Edwards v. Tenney, 65 Idaho 784, 154 P.2d 143.