Mathis v. Melton
| Decision Date | 18 March 1922 |
| Citation | 238 S.W. 806,293 Mo. 134 |
| Parties | T. M. MATHIS et al., Appellants, v. RALPH MELTON et al., Appellants |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Butler Circuit Court. -- Hon. Almon Ing, Judge.
Affirmed.
Atkinson Rombauer & Hill for plaintiffs.
(1) Several of the defendants are barred as to lots 15 and 16 by the ten-year Statute of Limitations. Sec. 1879, R. S. 1909. (2) Under the terms of Secs. 1884 and 1882, R. S. 1909, all the defendants are barred as to all the land. Coverture or minority does not bar the operation of the thirty-year statute. Collins v. Pease, 146 Mo. 135; DeHatre v. Edmonds, 200 Mo. 246; Scannell v. Am. etc Co., 161 Mo. 606; Campbell v. Greer, 209 Mo 199; Crain v. Peterman, 200 Mo. 295. (3) Non-payments of taxes need not be established by direct and positive proof, but may be inferred from other facts and circumstances. Rollins v. McIntire, 87 Mo. 496; Land & Imp. Co. v. Epright, 265 Mo. 217. (4) The fact that the land was assessed to Mrs. Jonathan Pinkerton in 1889 and the book showing the taxes were paid, but not showing by whom paid, is no proof that they were paid by the Greer heirs, and there is no presumption that they were paid at any time by the Greer heirs. Rollins v. McIntire, 87 Mo. 518. (5) This is a suit at law and this court will not disturb the findings of fact by the trial court. (6) When the Statutes of Limitation begin to run they run over everything, all disabilities. (7) It is only between the owner of the life estate and the remainderman that the duty devolves upon the owner of the life estate to pay the taxes. However, as to the State both the owner of the life estate and the remainderman owe a duty to pay taxes. 17 R. C. L. p. 636.
Henson & Woody for defendants.
(1) The judgment in favor of George Bates is correct because: (a) Immediately upon the birth of issue alive of the marriage between Horace Bates and Evelyn Greer, Horace Bates became vested with curtesy initiate in all the lands then owned by his wife, and in all lands that she might thereafter acquire. This curtesy became consummate upon the death of Evelyn Bates in 1908, and is a life estate in Horace Bates. Washburn on Real Property (3 Ed.), 146-169; Reaume v. Chambers, 22 Mo. 36; Casler v. Gray, 159 Mo. 594; Powell v. Powell, 267 Mo. 117; Miller v. Bledso, 61 Mo. 104; Meyers v. Hansbrough, 202 Mo. 495. (b) Under the law as it then existed, Horace Bates, immediately upon his marriage to Evelyn Greer, became entitled to the possession of all the real estate she owned, being an undivided one-half of the lands in controversy, and he alone could sue therefor. This right continued until her death in 1908, and was not affected by the Act of 1889, hence limitations did not run against Evelyn Bates. After her death, Horace Bates became entitled to the possession of the land as tenant by the curtesy, which right is still in existence, hence none of the Statutes of Limitation have ever begun to run against the interest George Bates inherited from his mother. Lewis v. Barnes, 272 Mo. 377; Lewis v. Barnes, 220 S.W. 487; Hall v. French, 165 Mo. 430; Shumate v. Snyder, 140 Mo. 77; Powell v. Powell, 267 Mo. 117; Howell v. Jump, 140 Mo. 442; Nichols v. Hobbs, 197 S.W. 258; Coulson v. La Plant, 196 S.W. 1147. (c) The tenancy of Horace Bates in an undivided one-half of the lands in controversy was an interest in the entire estate of his wife, and could not have been partitioned and set off to him in money in accordance with the mortality tables. Stockwell v. Stockwell, 262 Mo. 671; Carson v. Hecke, 222 S.W. 850. (d) It is the duty of the life tenant to pay the taxes, and the non-payment thereof by him in no wise affects the title of George Bates. Keaton v. Jorndt, 259 Mo. 196; Lewis v. Barnes, 199 S.W. 217; Armor v. Frey, 253 Mo. 474; Graham v. Ketchum, 192 Mo. 196; Troll v. St. Louis, 257 Mo. 731; Nichols v. Hobbs, 197 S.W. 260. (2) As to the remaining undivided one-half interest in the lands, the burden was on plaintiffs to show that they had acquired same by limitation. Freeland v. Williams, 220 Mo. 232; Slicer v. Owens, 241 Mo. 323; Improvement Co. v. Epright, 265 Mo. 210; Lewis v. Barnes, 199 S.W. 221; Lewis v. Barnes, 220 S.W. 490. (3) So far as the thirty-year statute is concerned, plaintiffs have failed to show that they acquired the interest of the heirs of Winfield Greer under that statute. State ex rel. v. Crumb, 157 Mo. 557; Hunter v. Moore, 202 S.W. 546; Bell v. George, 204 S.W. 519; Lewis v. Barnes, 272 Mo. 377; Huston v. Graves, 213 S.W. 79; Wier v. Lumber Co., 186 Mo. 388; Brannock v. McHenry, 252 Mo. 9; Nelson v. Jones, 245 Mo. 579, 591; Stone v. Perkins, 217 Mo. 586; Crain v. Peterman, 200 Mo. 295. (4) With the exception of the interest of Joseph Greer in lots 15 and 16, plaintiffs have failed to show that they acquired the interest of the heirs of Winfield Greer under the ten-year Statute of Limitation. R. S. 1909, sec. 1881; Franklin v. Cunningham, 187 Mo. 184; Bucher v. Hohl, 199 Mo. 320; Hinters v. Hinters, 114 Mo. 26.
REEVES, C. Railey and White, CC., concur.
Land title suit under the provisions of Section 1970, Revised Statutes 1919. The land involved is described as: "All of Lots 13, 15 and 16 of the Southwest quarter of Section 31, Township 26 north, Range 8 east, in Butler County, Missouri."
The petition is in usual form, alleging that plaintiffs are the owners in fee simple of said property; that defendants make an adverse claim, and plaintiffs pray for an ascertainment and determination of the interests of the parties litigant, and that defendants be divested of their apparent interest and the title made to repose in plaintiffs.
The defendants answered in groups, severally admitting their claim of title, denying the interest of plaintiffs, and they too prayed for a determination favorable to them and that title vest in them.
Plaintiffs filed their replication, wherein they set up the ten-and thirty-year Statutes of Limitations. Upon a trial, before the court, sitting as a jury, plaintiff, T. M. Mathis, was adjudged the owner of an undivided onehalf of Lot 13 and the life estate of defendant, Horace Bates, in the other undivided one-half of said lot; that subject to the life estate of Horace Bates, owned by the said Mathis, George W. Bates owned an undivided one-half of said lot; plaintiff, Belle Mathis, was adjudged the owner of an undivided one-half of Lots 15 and 16 and the life estate of Horace Bates in the other undivided one-half interest in said lots, and that George W. Bates owned an undivided one-half interest in said lots, subject to the life estate of Horace Bates, owned by the said Belle Mathis.
From this judgment there were cross appeals to this court.
Plaintiffs deraigned their title from a tax deed, dated November 10, 1888, filed for record June 8, 1889; mesne and intermediate conveyances down to them; the payment of taxes; adverse occupancy from the year 1908 to the date of the filing of the suit on May 6, 1919; and the failure of defendants to pay taxes for a period of thirty years, they being out of possession, and failure to bring suit within one year as provided by Section 1311, Revised Statutes 1919.
Defendants derive their title as heirs at law of one Alfred Greer who obtained a patent to said land, bearing date of July 19, 1859. Alfred Greer, the patentee, died about the years 1859 or 1860 with the legal title vested in him, the same having previously emanated from the United States Government. He was survived by one son and two daughters, viz., Winfield, Elizabeth and Evelyn. Elizabeth married, had no children, and both she and her husband died; Winfield died in 1906, leaving numerous heirs, who are defendants here; Evelyn married Horace Bates in October, 1874, had one child, defendant George W. Bates. She died in the year, 1908. All of the defendants, excepting Horace Bates and George W. Bates, who claim under Evelyn, are claimants as heirs at law of Winfield. Horace Bates, the husband of Evelyn, paid no taxes on said property. The widow of Winfield Greer paid no taxes after his death in 1906. Whatever taxes were paid on said property after 1887 appeared to have been paid by plaintiffs and those under whom they claim.
There was some testimony that Winfield Greer in his lifetime had disposed of his interest and had abandoned said property.
I. This was a statutory action tried to the court, without the intervention of a jury. Being an action at law, whatever conclusions the court reached upon substantial evidence are binding upon us. [Hunter v. Moore, 202 S.W. 544.] In entering its judgment the court must have found that the defendants and those under whom they claimed had been out of possession and had not paid taxes on said property for the statutory period of thirty years, and such a conclusion was warranted by the testimony. [Carson v. Lumber Co., 270 Mo. 238, 192 S.W. 1018; Schofield v. Harrison Land and Mining Co., 187 S.W. 61; Abeles v. Pillman, 261 Mo. 359, 168 S.W. 1180.]
II. Upon the death of Alfred Greer, the patentee, Elizabeth, Winfield and Evelyn inherited said property in equal parts. Upon the death of Elizabeth, without issue, Winfield and Evelyn inherited her part, so that they became owners each of an undivided one-half interest.
This suit was filed on May 6, 1919, and the thirty years and one year contemplated in said Section 1311, Revised Statutes 1919, began to run in May, 1888. Winfield Greer, being alive at that time and thereafter until 1906, the statute would run against him as to his part. [DeHarte v. Edmonds, 200 Mo. 246; Crain v. Peterman, 200 Mo. 295, 98 S.W 600; Fairbanks v. Long, 91 Mo. 628, 4 S.W. 499; Collins v. Pease, 146 Mo. 135, 47 S.W. 925; Scannell v. American Soda Fountain Co., 161 Mo....
To continue reading
Request your trial