Daudt v. Keen

• Decision Date: 09 July 1894
• Parties: Daudt v. Keen, Appellant
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

27 S.W. 361

124 Mo. 105

Daudt v. Keen, Appellant

Supreme Court of Missouri, First Division

July 9, 1894

Appeal from St. Charles Circuit Court. -- Hon. W. W. Edwards, Judge,

Reversed.

C. W Wilson and H. C. Lackland for appellant.

(1) The statute under which this suit is brought must be equitably construed. Secs. 2092, 2093. The plaintiff must come into court with clean hands and a fair case. (2) Plaintiff's possession was not in good faith, but illegally obtained for the purpose of forcing the burden of proof of title on the defendant. The court committed error in refusing to give defendant's instruction. Dyer v. Baumeister, 87 Mo. 134; Rutherford v. Uhlman, 42 Mo. 216; Campbell v. Allen, 61 Mo. 581; Babe v Phelps, 65 Mo. 27, 28; Von Phul v. Penn, 31 Mo 335; Burt v. Warren, 30 Mo.App. 334; Webb v. Donaldson, 60 Mo. 396; India Wharf v. Central Wharf, 117 Mass. 504; Brown v. Matthews, 117 Mass. 506; Tompkins v. Wyman, 116 Mass. 558; Byrne v. Hinds, 16 Minn. 521; Comstock v. Henneberry, 66 Ill. 212; Hardin v. Jones, 86 Ill. 316; Jackson v. Schoonmaker, 2 Johns. 234; Stetson v. Cook, 39 Mich. 750; Tichenor v. Knapp, 6 Ore. 205. Our statute is copied from the Massachusetts statute, and the decisions cited from that state are therefore binding in this. Skouten v. Wood, 57 Mo. 380. (3) The same rule as to the good faith and fairness of the plaintiff's possession applies in action of forcible entry and detainer. Keen v. Schnedler, 9 Mo.App. 597; DeGraw v. Price, 60 Mo. 56; Crispin v. Hannovan, 50 Mo. 536; Garrison v. Savignac, 25 Mo. 47; 20 Am. Law Register, 561-570. A scrambling possession is not sufficient. Dyer v. Reitz, 14 Mo.App. 46; Voll v. Butler, 49 Cal. 74; Conroy v. Duane, 45 Cal. 597; 8 Am. and Eng. Encyclopedia of Law, bottom pp. 117 to 123, and authorities there cited. (4) Plaintiff, at the time of instituting this action, could have maintained ejectment against Keen. (5) Any court of justice ought to hesitate and refuse to order a defendant in this sort of a suit to enter upon the stormy and uncertain sea of litigation, unless the plaintiff has the plainest sort of a case and no other remedy. Dyer v. Baumeister, 87 Mo. 134; Rutherford v. Uhlman, 42 Mo. 216; Dyer v. Krackauer, 14 Mo.App. 39; Wylie v. Waddell, 52 Mo.App. 226. (6) The court committed reversible errors in the admission of illegal evidence.

C. Daudt pro se.

This is a suit at law or rather a statutory suit and not a bill in equity, as contended for by appellant's counsel. Says this court in City of St. Louis v. Wetzel, 110 Mo. 264: "Findings of fact by the trial judge we do not review in statutory cases of this kind (being a condemnation proceeding) any more than in ordinary actions at law." This court will, therefore, not weigh the evidence and disturb the verdict of a jury or a court sitting as a jury, unless there is no evidence at all upon which to base it. Hamilton v. Boggess, 63 Mo. 233; Smith v. Flinn, 78 Mo. 499; Gaines v. Fender, 82 Mo. 509; Baum v. Fryrear, 85 Mo. 151.

OPINION

Macfarlane, J.

The proceeding is under the statute for quieting title. Plaintiff commenced the suit September 17, 1891, and charged in his petition that he was in possession, claiming an estate of freehold of a tract of land fronting six and fifty hundredths chains on the county road and extending, with the same width, south to the Missouri river, and that defendant made some adverse claim thereto.

Defendant, by answer, admitted plaintiff's possession of the north part of said land, extending from the said county road on the north to a slough which crossed the same, the quantity being twenty-six and sixty hundredths acres, but denied plaintiff's possession to any portion of said land south of said slough and between it and the river, but claimed that the land lying between said slough and the river was known as Green island and belonged to him, and was in his possession at the commencement of the suit.

The only issue under the pleading is whether plaintiff had such possession of that part of the land described in his petition which lies between the slough and the Missouri river on the south as entitles him to maintain this statutory proceeding to require the adverse claimant to prosecute a suit for the purpose of testing the validity of his claim.

The land in question was a part of the land known as "the point," and lay between the Missouri and Mississippi rivers above their confluence. A slough known as Green island slough left the Missouri river a mile or so above its junction with the Mississippi, and ran into the latter river a short distance above the junction. The land thus cut off by the slough and lying between it and the river was known as Green island. The quantity of land contained in this island is not given, but from the plat on file it seems to contain two hundred to three hundred acres. A county road runs east and west some distance north of the slough to the Mississippi river. To show his claim to the freehold, plaintiff introduced in evidence a deed to himself, describing the land, as hereinbefore stated, as having a front of six and fifty hundredths chains, and extending south, of the same width, to the river. Plaintiff claimed that this deed carried his title across the slough and island.

Defendant claimed the whole island under a deed from one Howff to himself. The evidence showed that in about the year 1884 the said Howff ran a three-wire fence along the south bank of the slough from the Missouri to the Mississippi river, thus inclosing, in that manner, the entire island. Howff also had a house or houses upon the island and some acres of land in cultivation.

Defendant then owned land north of the slough, as did also plaintiff and others. The north bank of the slough was generally known as the main shore and the land south of the slough as Green island. There seems to have been a question among the owners of the land north of the slough, whether, under their title papers, they did not take the title through the island to the present bank of the river. In about 1885 defendant commenced suit against Howff for the possession of the island or a portion of it.

In 1888 the ejectment suit between defendant and Howff was compromised, and Howff conveyed the whole of the island to defendant and the latter was put in possession. Defendant then built a wire fence from the east end of the Howff fence, at the Mississippi river, across to the Missouri river. The Howff fence, never very good, at this time was down at places, and was generally in a dilapidated condition.

In the fall of 1889 plaintiff had a tenant named Little on his land north of the slough. At that time he made a contract with Little to clear and cultivate land south of the slough, between his possession and the river. In pursuance of this agreement, during the winter of 1889 and 1890, Little cleared a small quantity of land south of and adjoining the bank of the slough, and cultivated it in the summer of 1890, and in the winter of 1890 and 1891 he cleared some more and put it in cultivation in the summer of 1891. The entire quantity cleared was three and sixty-five hundredths acres. During this time plaintiff cut and removed the said wire fence opposite his possession on the north side.

The evidence tended to prove that after defendant got possession of the island he made contracts with persons to clear portions of that land. He testified that he agreed with Little that he could also clear land on the island, and in consideration thereof he could cultivate it for a specified time. This agreement Little denied. Defendant testified that he supposed the clearing made by Little was done under this agreement.

Sometime during Little's occupancy of the land he had cleared defendant "ranked" large quantities of cord wood on each end of the land cleared by Little. These "ranks" of wood were as high as a "man's head on horseback," as described by a witness. There was evidence tending to prove that Little said that he had obtained permission from both parties to clear the land. After defendant learned that the wire had been cut and removed he rebuilt the fence, as he testified.

Each party claimed that he did not know the other was using the land until the fall of 1891. Both parties claimed to be in possession under the facts detailed.

The court found that plaintiff had such possession of the land cleared by Little, which was found to be three and sixty-five hundredths acres, and ordered the defendant to commence suit to test his alleged title to that part of the land within ninety days. The only instruction asked by defendant was in the nature of a demurrer to the evidence. This was refused. No instructions were asked by plaintiff or given by the court. The trial was without a jury. From the judgment defendant appealed.

I. The first claim is that the finding of the court upon conflicting evidence is conclusive on this court. This proceeding is purely statutory, and possesses none of the characteristics of a common law suit in equity to quiet title. The only issue made by the pleadings was whether plaintiff had, at the time he instituted the suit, such possession as entitled him to maintain the suit. Issues of fact in such statutory proceedings are triable as such issues in actions at law. If the parties desire to have the legal theory upon which the trial court acted reviewed by an appellate court, instructions or declarations of law should have been asked. Such has been the practice, as will be seen by an examination of the reported cases. Campbell v. Allen, 61 Mo. 581; Dyer v. Baumeister , 87 Mo. 134; R. S. 1889, sec. 2188.

In such case "the finding as to the facts on conflicting evidence is binding upon the court. We must look to the instructions given and the verdict...