Bartlett v. Boyd
Decision Date | 02 March 1915 |
Docket Number | No. 17005.,17005. |
Parties | BARTLETT v. BOYD. |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Pike County Edgar B. Woolfolk, Judge.
Action by F. E. Bartlett against W. A. Boyd. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded.
The plaintiff and defendant owned farms with a conterminous north and south boundary; defendant's farm lying north of plaintiff's, and stated in the grant to him to be bounded on the south by the land now owned by Esque Bartlett. Plaintiff brings this action of ejectment to recover a small strip of land alleged to be in the possession of defendant, but to be comprised within the north boundary of the plaintiff's farm.
On the trial, before the court without a jury, the evidence was that plaintiff purchased his farm in 1891, and defendant bought his in 1902; that an old fence ran between the farms, which was not shown to have been built on the true line of division, and plaintiff and defendant after some talk on the subject entered into the following written agreement:
A line was located under this agreement and plaintiff began some fencing work. The defendant refused to fence the portion of the line allotted to him, but served the following notice upon plaintiff:
"To Esque Bartlett: You are hereby notified that the rock in the road leading from Buffalo creek to Buffalo Church along the east side of the land now owned by you, and the land now owned by me, is the true corner stone of the northeast corner of your land and the southeast corner of my land, and that all the land lying immediately north of said corner stone and north of a line drawn west from said corner is my land; that the fence as it now stands on said line and lying between the land now owned and occupied by you and the land note owned and occupied by myself is on the line, and that I claim to own exclusively all the land lying immediately north of said fence and said line; and that I hereby forbid you, or any for you, to enter in and upon the same for the purpose of laying claim to or asserting ownership of any kind whatever, or of fencing the same or inclosing it in any way whatever, or of tearing down or destroying any fences or buildings now on the same, or in any way whatsoever of claiming or asserting ownership thereof to said land north of said line and fence, and that should you do so, or any one for you, I shall hold all " who do so as trespassers and shall hold them strictly accountable therefor.
Plaintiff then ceased work and brought an ejectment against defendant. Thereupon defendant took up the matter of a dismissal of the suit and a submission of the division line to arbitration, and the parties entered into the following agreement:
To continue reading
Request your trial- State v. Duncan
-
Central States Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. U.S. Fidelity & Guar. Co.
...v. Boatmen's Bank, 143 Mo. 13; Vincent v. Means, 184 Mo. 327; Crossett v. Ferrill, 209 Mo. 704; Eaton v. Cates, 175 S.W. 950; Bartlett v. Boyd, 175 S.W. 947; Tire & Rubber Co. v. Ward, 195 S.W. 75; Jones v. Toledo, etc., Co., 202 S.W. 433; Jaicks v. Schoellkopf, 220 S.W. 486; Grams v. Novin......
- State ex inf. Barker v. Duncan
-
Diers v. Peterson
...v. Bergman, 189 S.W. 1166; Gloyd v. Frank, 248 Mo. 477; Mangold v. Phillips, 186 S.W. 988; Lemmons v. McKinney, 162 Mo. 525, 531; Bartlett v. Boyd, 175 S.W. 947; Hodges v. Pollard, 149 Mo. 216, OPINION HIGBEE, P. J. The petition states that plaintiffs are the owners of and entitled to the p......