Ramsey v. Henderson

• Decision Date: 16 May 1887
• Citation: 91 Mo. 560,4 S.W. 408
• Parties: RAMSEY v. HENDERSON.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

4 S.W. 408

91 Mo. 560

RAMSEY v. HENDERSON.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

May 16, 1887.

1. EJECTMENT — EVIDENCE — PLEADINGS.

In an action of ejectment, title to lands described in the pleadings only is to be considered in issue. Evidence of title to other lands is not admissible.

2. LANDLORD AND TENANT — NOTICE TO QUIT.

Where a tenant enters upon land and subsequently denies his landlord's title, held, that he is not entitled to notice to quit.

Appeal from circuit court, Greene county.

T. J. White and J. P. McCammon, for respondent. F. S. Sheppard, for appellant.

RAY, J.

This is an action of ejectment, in the usual form, by plaintiff to recover from defendant the possession of a parcel of ground described in the petition as "the north-west quarter of lot thirty-seven, Stephens' addition to the city of Springfield, Mo." The answer of defendant, and portions of the evidence deemed material and pertinent to the action of the court upon declaration of law, will be noticed hereafter in the progress of the opinion. The case was tried by the court without the aid of a jury, and a finding and judgment had in favor of plaintiff for the recovery of the possession of the premises described in the petition, from which judgment the defendant has appealed to this court.

The paper title to said lot 37, read in evidence by plaintiff, seems to be formal and regular in all respects. No question is, we believe, made in that behalf. The defendant acquired her possession, in the first instance, about the years 1872 or 1873, as the tenant of plaintiff. Both plaintiff and defendant so testify. Defendant testifies that subsequently she held under a verbal contract of purchase. In 1881, Shepard bought lots numbered 34, 35, and 36 in said addition, and claimed, according to a survey and measurement made to establish the corners of his lots, that the defendant had built her cabin and dug her well on the south part of his said lot 36, which, according to the plat offered in evidence, lies immediately north of lot 37. Shepard shortly afterwards sued defendant in ejectment, and recovered, the suit being undefended, and thereafter sold the south-west quarter of lot 36 to defendant at and for the sum of $30. A proper chain of title to said lot last mentioned was read in evidence by defendant at the trial.

The claim was made in defendant's behalf at the trial, and is renewed here, that this lot, to-wit, the S. W. ¼ of 36, was the land plaintiff sues for and was really seeking to recover, although it was described in the petition as the N W. ¼ of lot 37. As the pleadings in the cause then were, we do not see how this claim and evidence in that behalf was competent or admissible. Parties are bound by their pleadings. Courts cannot disregard them, or give relief in conflict with and inconsistent with their statements of facts and admissions.

The petition in the case, as we have seen, described the lot sued for as "the north-west qr. of lot 37." The answer in the case, we may observe, embraces two defenses: First, it says: "For answer, defendant admits the possession of the north-west qr. of lot 37, Stephens' addition to the city of Springfield, and denies every other allegation in plaintiff's petition contained." So far as this first defense, therefore, is concerned, the only issue is as to the right to the possession of the ground, which is described in the answer, as well as in the petition, as the "north-west qr. of lot 37," in said addition.

The second and "equitable defense" set up in the answer charges that defendant verbally...