Irwin v. Woodmansee

• Decision Date: 25 May 1891
• Parties: IRWIN v. WOODMANSEE et al.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

16 S.W. 486

104 Mo. 403

IRWIN v. WOODMANSEE et al.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.

May 25, 1891.

ADVERSE POSSESSION — REVIEW ON APPEAL.

1. A father owned a three-acre lot, from which he had fenced off an acre on the south side. In 1875 he conveyed the south part of the lot by metes and bounds to his son, who took possession and occupied to the fence. In 1880 the son conveyed to the plaintiff, who occupied to the same line until 1887, when he sued to recover a strip lying north of the fence. About the time of the conveyance to the son, he and his father built a substantial fence on the line of the old one. The line was fixed with much care, and established as the boundary line between them. Thereafter the father and his grantees continuously occupied, improved, and claimed as their own the strip in controversy. Held, that the father and his grantees had acquired title by adverse possession.

2. The findings of the court stand on the same footing as a verdict of a jury, and will not be disturbed if there is substantial evidence to support them.

Appeal from circuit court, Jasper county; M. G. McGREGOR, Judge.

T. B. Houghawout, for appellant. E. O. Brown and C. A. Patterson, for respondents.

BRACE, J.

This is an action in ejectment to recover a strip of land 9½ feet wide by 424½ long, in the city of Carthage, in Jasper county. The petition is in the usual form. The suit was originally brought against Nancy Woodmansee, tenant of Harriet Fabyan, who was made a party defendant on her own motion. The defense set up in the answer was the statute of limitations. The case was tried before the court without a jury, and resulted in a judgment for the defendant, from which plaintiff appeals. The suit was instituted on the 10th of June, 1887. David Woodmansee is the common source of title. In 1872 he purchased a three-acre lot in the city of Carthage, and took possession thereof, fenced it, erected a house, and made other improvements on the north part of said lot, and built a fence running east and west through the lot, fencing off about an acre on the south side for a cattle lot. On the 30th of March, 1875, David Woodmansee conveyed to his son, Solomon D., by metes and bounds, the south part of the lot. Solomon took possession of his part of the lot, and occupied it to the line of this east and west fence until September, 1880, when he conveyed it, by the same description, to the plaintiff, who took possession and occupied it to the same line, by tenants or in person, until the spring of 1887, when he had a survey made of his lot, and brought this suit. It was admitted that the strip of land sued for was within the east and west boundary line called for in his deeds, which was about 9½ feet north of the line of said fence. The defendant Fabyan by mesne conveyance has acquired the legal title of David Woodmansee to the north part of said lot not conveyed to his son, Solomon. The strip of land sued for, lying along and north of said fence, has ever since the conveyance by David Woodmansee to his son, Solomon, remained in the open, notorious, continuous, exclusive, and actual possession and occupancy of the said David and his grantees, to the line of said east and west fence, and was so in the possession of the defendant when this suit was brought.

1. The only question in the case was whether such possession by the defendant and her grantors was adverse. This question of fact was fairly presented and passed upon by the court under a series of declarations of law in which no error is pointed out, and in which we have been unable to discover any. If any...