180 S.W.2d 49 (Mo. 1944), 38781, Connell v. Jersey Realty & Inv. Co.

Docket Nº38781
Citation180 S.W.2d 49, 352 Mo. 1122
Opinion JudgePER CURIAM
Party NameKatherine I. Martin Connell, Grace D. Smith, Laura C. Smith, and Clifford B. Smith v. Jersey Realty & Investment Company, Appellant
AttorneyGossett, Ellis, Dietrich & Tyler and Adams, Adams & Adams for appellant. Charles W. Hess, Jr., and Frank H. Terrell for respondents.
Judge PanelBradley, C. Dalton and Van Osdol, CC., concur.
Case DateMay 02, 1944
CourtSupreme Court of Missouri

Page 49

180 S.W.2d 49 (Mo. 1944)

352 Mo. 1122

Katherine I. Martin Connell, Grace D. Smith, Laura C. Smith, and Clifford B. Smith

v.

Jersey Realty & Investment Company, Appellant

No. 38781

Supreme Court of Missouri

May 2, 1944

Rehearing Denied July 3, 1944.

Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court; Hon. Ben Terte, Judge.

Reversed and remanded (with directions).

Gossett, Ellis, Dietrich & Tyler and Adams, Adams & Adams for appellant.

(1) Title to real estate being involved, the Supreme Court has jurisdiction of this appeal. Mo. Constitution, Art. VI, Sec. 12, as amended in 1884; State v. Elliff, 332 Mo. 211, 58 S.W.2d 281; Proctor v. Proctor, 256 S.W. 110; Davis v. Lea, 293 Mo. 660, 239 S.W. 823. (2) The court committed error in decreeing that respondents and the general public had obtained an easement over the private streets or courts of the appellant Jersey Realty & Investment Company's land, and in enjoining appellant and all other persons connected with it from interfering with the respondents and the general public using said private streets or courts. Anthony v. Building Co., 188 Mo. 704, 87 S.W. 921; Session Acts, 1887, sec. 57, p. 257; 1 Bouvier's Law Dictionary, p. 632; 19 C.J., sec. 74, p. 897; Smith v. City of Sedalia, 152 Mo. 283, 53 S.W. 907; Sec. 8485, R.S. 1939. (3) No easement was acquired in this case because whatever user existed was not adverse in character, and the evidence was not clear and unequivocal. Kelsey v. City of Shrewsbury, 335 Mo. 78, 71 S.W.2d 730; Coberly v. Butler, 63 Mo.App. 556; Anthony v. Building Co., 188 Mo. 704, 87 S.W. 921; Bauman v. Boeckeler, 119 Mo. 189, 24 S.W. 207; 18 C.J., p. 105, sec. 120; Sanford v. Kern, 223 Mo. 616, 122 S.W. 1051; Johnson v. Ferguson, 329 Mo. 363, 44 S.W.2d 650; State ex rel. McIntosh v. Haworth, 124 S.W.2d 653; Mulik v. Jorganian, 326 Mo. 106, 37 S.W.2d 963; St. Louis v. Clagg, 233 S.W. 1; Shaw v. St. Louis-S.F. Ry. Co., 9 S.W.2d 835; Hanke v. St. Louis, 272 S.W. 933; Benton v. St. Louis, 217 Mo. 687, 118 S.W. 418. (4) Appellant is not estopped to deny dedication nor to deny as easement where nothing beyond permissive use is shown. Wallach v. Stettina, 28 S.W.2d 389; Gilleland v. Rutt, 63 S.W.2d 199; State ex rel. McIntosh v. Haworth, 124 S.W.2d 653; Bauman v. Boeckeler, 119 Mo. 189, 24 S.W. 207; Secs. 3426, 3427, 3428, R.S. 1939. (5) Since 1887 the law in Missouri has been that a road becomes public when either (a) Establish by an order of the county court, or (b) upon ten years use by the public and the expenditures of public money or labor for that period. Since neither requirement exists here the road is not public. Sec. 8485, R.S. 1939; Lee v. Railroad, 150 Mo.App. 175, 129 S.W. 773; State ex rel. McIntosh v. Haworth, 124 S.W.2d 653; Garbee v. St. Louis-S.F. Ry. Co., 290 S.W. 655; Strong v. Sperling, 200 Mo.App. 66, 205 S.W. 266.

Charles W. Hess, Jr., and Frank H. Terrell for respondents.

(1) The facts clearly show a dedication and a public acceptance thereof. 26 C.J.S. on Dedication, p. 49; Johnson v. Ferguson, 44 S.W.2d 650, 329 Mo. 363; Byam v. Kansas City Pub. Serv. Co., 41 S.W.2d 945; State ex rel. McIntosh v. Haworth, 124 S.W.2d 653; Mulik v. Jorganian, 37 S.W.2d l.c. 964; Richard v. Public Serv. Comm., 239 S.W. 838; Main v. Nash, 245 S.W. 581; St. Louis v. Clagg, 233 S.W. 1; Shaw v. St. Louis-S.F. Ry. Co., 9 S.W.2d 835; Hank v. St. Louis, 272 S.W. 933; Benton v. St. Louis, 217 Mo. 687. (2) The user, which existed under the facts of this case, was admittedly not adverse in character but there is no such requirement in a case involving implied or common law dedication. Kelsey v. City of Shrewsbury, 335 Mo. 78, 71 S.W.2d 730; Coberly v. Butler, 63 Mo.App. 556; Anthony v. Kennard Bldg. Co., 188 Mo. 704, 87 S.W. 921; Byam v. Kansas City Pub. Serv. Co., 41 S.W.2d 945; Sanford v. Kern, 223 Mo. 616. (3) The estoppel contended for by respondents is based upon more than permissive use; it is based upon seventeen years of benefit to the appellant who now seeks to rescind the bargain. (4) Since 1887 statutory establishments of streets are not the exclusive methods. Common law and implied dedications are still recognized. Sec. 8485, R.S. 1939; School District v. Tooloose, 195 S.W. 1023; Borders v. Glenn, 232 S.W. 1062; Borchers v. Brewer, 271 Mo.App. 137, 196 S.W. 10; State ex rel. McIntosh v. Haworth, 124 S.W.2d 653; Bauman v. Boeckler, 119 Mo. 189; Lee v. Railroad, 150 Mo.App. 175; Garbee v. The Frisco Railway, 290 S.W. 655; Strong v. Sperling, 200 Mo.App. 66. (5) On matters of disputed evidence the Supreme Court, even in cases of appeal in equity, defer to the judgment of the trial court who has the better opportunity to observe and weigh the evidence. Zumwalt v. Forbis, 163 S.W.2d 574; Downend v. Kansas City, 156 Mo. 60, 56 S.W. 902.

Bradley, C. Dalton and Van Osdol, CC., concur.

OPINION

PER CURIAM

Page 50

[352 Mo. 1124] Plaintiffs, respondents here, sought a declaratory judgment (Secs. 1126 et seq., R.S. 1939, Mo. R.S.A., Secs. 1126 et seq.) that certain land areas claimed by defendant were subject to a public easement by common law dedication. The trial court so declared, enjoined defendant from interfering with the public use of the areas in question, and defendant...

To continue reading

Request your trial
35 practice notes
  • 238 S.W.2d 346 (Mo. 1951), 42059, Cowherd Development Co. v. Littick
    • United States
    • Missouri United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • March 12, 1951
    ...for appellants. (1) This case is here for consideration and determination by this court de novo. Connell v. Jersey Realty & Inv. Co., 352 Mo. 1122, 180 S.W.2d 49; Hastings v. Hudson, 359 Mo. 912, 224 S.W.2d 945; Davidson v. Eubanks, 354 Mo. 301, 189 S.W.2d 295; Sec. 114 (d), Civil Code ......
  • 564 S.W.2d 267 (Mo.App. 1978), 38354, Bollinger County v. Ladd
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • February 14, 1978
    ...courts have somewhat amplified it in Lozier v. Bultman, 286 S.W.2d 43 (Mo.App.1955) and Connell v. Jersey Realty & Investment Co., 352 Mo. 1122, 180 S.W.2d 49 (1944). In Connell the court held that: "To constitute a common law dedication, the owner must have done something by act o......
  • 253 S.W.2d 149 (Mo. 1952), 42989, Boyle v. Crimm
    • United States
    • Missouri United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • December 8, 1952
    ...Middleton v. Reece, 236 S.W.2d 335; Zinn v. City of Steelville, 351 Mo. 413, 173 S.W.2d 398; Connell v. Jersey Realty & Inv. Co., 352 Mo. 1122, 180 S.W.2d 49. (3) The deposition of Louis H. Burns showed he was a resident of Kansas City, Missouri; there was no proof rendering it admissib......
  • 953 S.W.2d 103 (Mo.App. S.D. 1997), 21369, Birdsong v. Bydalek
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • August 22, 1997
    ...to real estate interests was equitable in nature and governed by equity principles and rules. See Connell v. Jersey Realty & Inv. Co., 352 Mo. 1122, 180 S.W.2d 49, 54 (1944). See also, Mutual Drug Co. v. Sewall, 353 Mo. 375, 182 S.W.2d 575, 576 (Mo.1944). Plaintiffs' second and third co......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
35 cases
  • 238 S.W.2d 346 (Mo. 1951), 42059, Cowherd Development Co. v. Littick
    • United States
    • Missouri United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • March 12, 1951
    ...for appellants. (1) This case is here for consideration and determination by this court de novo. Connell v. Jersey Realty & Inv. Co., 352 Mo. 1122, 180 S.W.2d 49; Hastings v. Hudson, 359 Mo. 912, 224 S.W.2d 945; Davidson v. Eubanks, 354 Mo. 301, 189 S.W.2d 295; Sec. 114 (d), Civil Code ......
  • 564 S.W.2d 267 (Mo.App. 1978), 38354, Bollinger County v. Ladd
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • February 14, 1978
    ...courts have somewhat amplified it in Lozier v. Bultman, 286 S.W.2d 43 (Mo.App.1955) and Connell v. Jersey Realty & Investment Co., 352 Mo. 1122, 180 S.W.2d 49 (1944). In Connell the court held that: "To constitute a common law dedication, the owner must have done something by act o......
  • 253 S.W.2d 149 (Mo. 1952), 42989, Boyle v. Crimm
    • United States
    • Missouri United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • December 8, 1952
    ...Middleton v. Reece, 236 S.W.2d 335; Zinn v. City of Steelville, 351 Mo. 413, 173 S.W.2d 398; Connell v. Jersey Realty & Inv. Co., 352 Mo. 1122, 180 S.W.2d 49. (3) The deposition of Louis H. Burns showed he was a resident of Kansas City, Missouri; there was no proof rendering it admissib......
  • 953 S.W.2d 103 (Mo.App. S.D. 1997), 21369, Birdsong v. Bydalek
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • August 22, 1997
    ...to real estate interests was equitable in nature and governed by equity principles and rules. See Connell v. Jersey Realty & Inv. Co., 352 Mo. 1122, 180 S.W.2d 49, 54 (1944). See also, Mutual Drug Co. v. Sewall, 353 Mo. 375, 182 S.W.2d 575, 576 (Mo.1944). Plaintiffs' second and third co......
  • Request a trial to view additional results