1 S.W. 216 (Mo. 1886), Anderson v. Pemberton

Citation1 S.W. 216, 89 Mo. 61
Opinion JudgeSherwood, J.
Party NameAnderson et al. v. Pemberton et al., Appellants
AttorneyJohn J. Cockrell for appellants. Samuel P. Sparks for respondents.
Judge PanelSherwood, J. Black, J., dissents.
Case DateJune 07, 1886
CourtSupreme Court of Missouri

Page 216

1 S.W. 216 (Mo. 1886)

89 Mo. 61

Anderson et al.

v.

Pemberton et al., Appellants

Supreme Court of Missouri

June 7, 1886

Appeal from Johnson Circuit Court. -- Hon. Noah M. Givan, Judge.

Reversed.

John J. Cockrell for appellants.

(1) Private property cannot be taken for public use without just compensation. In so taking it the power must be strictly pursued. Sec. 21, art. 2, Constitution of Mo.; Leslie v. City of St. Louis, 47 Mo. 477; Schaffner v. City of St. Louis, 31 Mo. 272; Whitely v. Platte Co., 73 Mo. 30. (2) The establishment of a road is an entirety, and if void as to one, it is so as to all. Brush v. Detroit, 32 Mich. 43. (3) Where no damages have been assessed to one whose land is taken, the proceeding is void. State v. Runyon, 24 N. J. L. [4 Zab.] 256; State v. Bennett, 25 N. J. L. [1 Dutch.] 329; Carpenter v. Grunshaw, 59 Mo. 247. (4) The road law (section 8, page 159, Acts of 1883), requires the report of a commissioner to be filed in court on or before first day of next term of court. If they act after that date, or file their report after that date, their action and report are void. Road in Reserve, Trop. 2 Grant [Pa.] Cases, 204; Commonwealth v. Great Barrington, 6 Mass. 492. (5) A parol gift of land accompanied by possession for fourteen or fifteen years, and payment of taxes and making valuable improvements, will vest a title in the donee and constitute him owner of the land. Wood on Frauds, sec. 488, p. 826; Anderson v. Shockley, 82 Mo. 250; West v. Bundy, 78 Mo. 407.

Samuel P. Sparks for respondents.

(1) The only question involved in this case is, did the county court acquire jurisdiction to establish the road. Southerland v. Holmes, 78 Mo. 399. (2) The forum for the determination of damages primarily was the county court, and appellants having neglected to have that question re-tried there, could not complain of that upon appeal to the circuit court, nor in this court. Laws 1883, sec. 9, p. 160. (3) [a] The evidence was not sufficient to authorize the court to find that the west half of the southwest quarter of 24, 44, 24, belonged to Mrs. Rose. Proof of a mere promise to give will not be enforced. 1 Parsons on Cont. [5 Ed.] 234; Spencer v. Vance, 57 Mo. 249. [b] The county court is only bound to ascertain who is the legal and the record owner. [c] Conceding that Mrs. Rose was the equitable owner, the evidence shows that Mr. M...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP
69 practice notes
  • 165 S.W. 707 (Mo. 1914), State ex rel. Summerson v. Goodrich
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 2 Abril 1914
    ...Co., 73 Mo. 30; Zimmerman v. Snowden, 88 Mo. 220; Spurlock v. Dornan, 182 Mo. 250; Railroad v. Young, 96 Mo. 43; Anderson v. Pemberton, 89 Mo. 61; Kansas City v. Smith, 238 Mo. 330. Section 18, article 7, of the charter, upon which respondent relies for authority to maintain these proceedin......
  • 20 S.W. 1069 (Mo. 1893), St. Louis, Oak Hill & Carondelet Railway Company v. Fowler
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 23 Enero 1893
    ...62 Mo. 585; Cory v. Railroad, 100 Mo. 290; Cunningham v. Railroad, 61 Mo. 33; St. Louis v. Gleason, 89 Mo. 67; Anderson v. Pemberton, 89 Mo. 61. (10) The damages of the defendants should have been assessed upon the basis of the value of the property in question at the date of trial, and not......
  • 21 S.W. 1118 (Mo. 1893), Union Depot Company v. Frederick
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 19 Junio 1893
    ...of property for public use are strictly construed. Ells v. Railroad, 51 Mo. 200; Whitely v. Platte Co., 73 Mo. 30; Anderson v. Pemberton, 89 Mo. 61. (6) The act of March, 1871, authorized Union Depot companies to condemn lands in fee only and not merely the use. The Constitution, art. 2, se......
  • 84 S.W.2d 133 (Mo. 1935), City of St. Louis v. Senter Com'n Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 5 Junio 1935
    ...proceedings are valid, the assessments of benefits to pay awarded damages for property taken are not valid. Anderson v. Pemberton, 89 Mo. 61. Jurisdiction of courts over eminent domain proceedings is wholly statutory and all jurisdictional facts must be pleaded. St. Louis v. Glasgow, 254 Mo......
  • Free signup to view additional results
69 cases
  • 239 P. 738 (Idaho 1925), City of Lewiston v. Brinton
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court of Idaho
    • 3 Agosto 1925
    ...par. 83, p. 656, par. 131, p. 847, par. 286; C. S., secs. 5324-9456; Lewis on Eminent Domain, 3d ed., secs. 535-548; Anderson v. Pemberton, 89 Mo. 61, 1 S.W. 216; Brush v. Detroit, 32 Mich. 43.) The instructions of the court confining the measure of damages to the fair, cash, market value o......
  • 139 S.W. 144 (Mo. 1911), Western Tie & Timber Company v. Pulliam
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 15 Julio 1911
    ...Eaton v. St. Charles, 8 Mo.App. 177, 77 Mo. 493; State ex rel. v. Wall, 153 Mo. 222; Whitely v. County, 73 Mo. 30; Anderson v. Pemberton, 89 Mo. 66; In re Avenue, 121 Mo. 105; Names v. Comrs., 30 Mich. 490; McKee v. Hull, 69 Wis. 662; State v. Lyon, 73 Wis. 601; Fraser v. Trelawney, 129 Wis......
  • 22 S.W. 899 (Mo. 1893), Leonard v. Sparks
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 19 Junio 1893
    ...complied with, every step will be coram non judice. Ells v. Railroad, 51 Mo. 200; Cunningham v. Railroad, 61 Mo. 33; Anderson v. Pemberton, 89 Mo. 61; Bleze v. Costelio, 8 Mo.App. 290. (6) Notice of proceedings to take property for public use, when required to be given, is the foundation of......
  • 28 S.W. 853 (Mo. 1894), Williams v. Monroe
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 18 Diciembre 1894
    ...not affecting the jurisdiction.'" Leslie v. St. Louis, 47 Mo. 447; Whiteley v. Platte County, 73 Mo. 30; Anderson v. Pemberton, 89 Mo. 61; Kanne v. Railroad, 33 Minn. 419; McCoy v. Zane, 65 Mo. 11; Railroad v. Campbell, 62 Mo. 585; Ellis v. Railroad, 51 Mo. 200; Gray v. Railroad, 81 Mo......
  • Free signup to view additional results