11 S.W. 241 (Mo. 1889), Liggett v. Morgan
|Citation:||11 S.W. 241, 98 Mo. 39|
|Opinion Judge:||Brace, J.|
|Party Name:||Liggett, Plaintiff in Error, v. Morgan et al|
|Attorney:||S. G. Loring for plaintiff in error. Ramey & Brown for defendants in error.|
|Judge Panel:||Brace, J. Sherwood, J., absent.|
|Case Date:||March 23, 1889|
|Court:||Supreme Court of Missouri|
Error to De Kalb Circuit Court. -- Hon. B. J. Casteel, Special Judge.
Reversed and remanded.
(1) The court erred in the admission of evidence. (2) The court erred in the giving of instructions, especially the third. There was no evidence that Henry Houk promised the defendant, Catharine Morgan, that if she and her husband would settle upon the land, they or either of them might have it for their own.
[98 Mo. 40]
This is an action in ejectment for a tract of land in DeKalb county described in the petition by metes and bounds. The defense was ten years adverse possession.
The plaintiff derived title to the premises by warranty deed, dated September 24, 1881, from Henry Houk, the patentee. This suit was begun in March, 1882. The defendant Catharine Morgan is the daughter of the said Henry Houk. She and her husband went into the actual possession of the premises about fifteen years before this suit was brought, and have been continuously in the possession thereof during all that time. The only question in the case is: Was this possession held adversely to her father's title?
The evidence for the defendants tended to show that the premises was a small tract of brush land situate about a half a mile from Henry Houk's home; that his daughter, Mrs. Morgan, was living elsewhere with her husband; that her mother having died, and a sister who was living at home with her father being about to marry, in January prior to the defendant's going upon the land, her father through her brother proposed to her that if she would move on the land and help take care of his younger children he would give her the land; that she accepted the proposal and in pursuance of such agreement the defendants went upon the land, built a house [98 Mo. 41] upon it, cleared up and fenced about three-fourths of it, and ever since have lived upon the premises claiming it as the property of Mrs. Morgan.
The evidence for the plaintiff tended to disprove any such agreement, and to prove that in January before defendants went upon the land Henry Houk, the father of Mrs. Morgan, and Smith Morgan...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP