Catto v. Hollister

Decided January 31, 1918

North Dakota Supreme Court · decided 1918-01-31

L. Nuessle, Judge. Defendants appeal. The appointment of an agent need not be by express language, but may be and often is implied from the relation of thé parties and from their conduct. 1 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 957, note 5, 959, 960, 1144 and cases cited in note 1. Silence, when there is a duty to speak, is deemed equivalent to concealment when the person had a full knowledge of the facts and of his rights. 10 R. C. L. 693; Pom. Eq.

Affirmed · Decided 1918-01-31

Robinson, J.

¶1The plaintiff brings this action to quiet her title to all the land described in the complaint. She obtained a judgment. She is the owner of the patent title. Defendant claims under a deed which is clearly and confessedly forged, and appeals to this court. The claim is that plaintiff was negligent in not looking after her title, procuring abstracts, and promptly commencing an action to cancel the forged deeds.

¶2The claim is futile. A party who has a good title to real property under recorded deeds has no occasion to keep watch of his title. Every purchaser or mortgagee must at his peril see that he gets title from one having title to convey. The appeal presents nothing worthy of any consideration or comment.

¶3Judgment affirmed.