Bedford v. Sykes

• Decision Date: 28 March 1902
• Citation: 168 Mo. 8,67 S.W. 569
• Parties: BEDFORD v. SYKES.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

67 S.W. 569

168 Mo. 8

BEDFORD v. SYKES.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.

March 28, 1902.

QUIETING TITLE — STATUTES — JUDGMENT — RESTITUTION OF PREMISES — JUDGMENT IN EJECTMENT — COLLATERAL ATTACK.

1. A judgment cannot be collaterally attacked by the parties on the ground that it is erroneous.

2. Acts 1897, p. 74 (Rev. St. 1899, § 650), enacts that any one claiming title, estate, or interest in realty, whether legal or equitable, certain or contingent, present or in reversion, and whether in or out of possession, may institute an action to have the estate determined and adjudged. The statute does not repeal or abrogate Rev. St. 1899, c. 24, in regard to ejectment. Held that, on a finding for plaintiff in an action under the statute, entry of judgment for restitution of the premises is not warranted.

3. A petition in an action under the statute alleging title in plaintiff, and that defendant has entered under claim of title, and withholds possession from plaintiff, does not contain facts on which to predicate a judgment for restitution.

Appeal from circuit court, Stoddard county; J. L. Fort, Judge.

Suit by H. H. Bedford against Joseph Sykes. From a decree for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed.

This is a proceeding under the act of 1897, p. 74 (section 650, Rev. St. 1899), begun on the 17th day of January, 1898, to quiet the title to all that part of the W. ½ of the S. W. ¼ of the N. W. ¼ and E. ½ of S. E. ¼ of the N. W. ¼ of section 23, township 26, range 10, lying along and south of the Bloomfield and Greenville road, east of the premises occupied by Albert Moore, west of the fence separating the tract from Ringer's addition to the town of Bloomfield and premises occupied by Wm. W. Perry, and running southward from said road about 660 feet, of which plaintiff claims to have been in the exclusive, peaceable, open, notorious, and adverse possession, with claim of title thereto, from the 3d day of March, 1867, until the 19th day of January, 1888. The petition alleges that defendant, Sykes, claims title to said land, and on the 19th day of June, 1888, he unlawfully entered into the possession of said land, and unlawfully withholds the possession thereof from plaintiff. Defendant, by answer, denied generally all the allegations of the petition, except what is in the answer expressly admitted. The answer then proceeds as follows: "Defendant, for further answer, states that it is true that he entered into the actual possession of the premises described in plaintiff's petition on or before or about 19th day of June, 1888; that he entered into such possession as the true owner thereof, under and by virtue of a judgment of the circuit court of the county of Stoddard rendered on the day aforesaid in an action of ejectment instituted by this defendant as plaintiff against the plaintiff as defendant therein on the 20th day of August, 1886, to which action the plaintiff, as defendant therein, on the 7th day of March, 1887, filed his amended answer to the plaintiff's petition therein, setting up the statute of limitations as herein set out and pleaded by plaintiff in this action, which said cause was on the 8th day of March, 1887, duly submitted to the court on the issues therein, and afterwards, on the 19th day of June, 1888, the said court duly entered judgment for this defendant, as plaintiff therein, and against plaintiff herein, as defendant therein, finding and adjudging that the plaintiff herein had unlawfully entered into and detained the possession of said premises through mistake of the true location of the boundary line between plaintiff and defendant as adjoining proprietors and landowners, and that plaintiff's possession therein was not adverse, which said judgment in ejectment was not appealed from or otherwise set aside or annulled, and remains in full force and effect. Defendant, for further answer, says that plaintiff's supposed cause of action did not accrue within ten years before the commencement of this action, and is wholly barred by the statute of limitation." Plaintiff filed a reply to defendant's answer, in which he denies each and every allegation therein, except that a judgment was obtained in favor of defendant, but states that in said suit the statutes of limitation were not pleaded; and plaintiff further states that said judgment was obtained by fraud, in this, to wit: That said defendant combined and conspired with the circuit judge of the Stoddard circuit court (John G. Wear) to defraud plaintiff of his said real estate; that after said cause in ejectment was tried the cause was taken under advisement by the said judge, John G. Wear; that, although often requested so to do, the said judge, John G. Wear, refused to determine said suit upon the testimony submitted until such time as plaintiff, and then defendant, was absent from the court; that afterwards, in pursuance of said conspiracy, the said judge, John G. Wear, selected a time to call up said cause and determine same during the absence of said plaintiff, and when plaintiff could not be heard. This defendant, Joseph Sykes, and said judge, John G. Wear, concealed the fact from plaintiff that said judgment...