Buford v. Moore

• Decision Date: 01 June 1915
• Docket Number: No. 16735.,16735.
• Citation: 177 S.W. 865
• Parties: BUFORD v. MOORE.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

177 S.W. 865

BUFORD v. MOORE.

No. 16735.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.

June 1, 1915.

Error to Circuit Court, Reynolds County; E. M. Dearing, Judge.

Action by C. Buford against Louise C. Moore. There was a judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Affirmed.

Plaintiff, Buford, on October 7, 1908, filed in the circuit court of Reynolds county, Mo., a petition to quiet title to certain land in said county, under section 650, R. S. 1899. The petition alleges that defendant was a nonresident of Missouri; that he is the owner of N. E. ¼ of section 1, township 29 of range 1 E., containing 160 acres, situated in said Reynolds county. Plaintiff avers that the real estate aforesaid is not in the possession of any person or persons whatsoever, but is wild and uncultivated timber land; that defendant claims some title, estate, or interest in and to said premises, the nature and character of which claim is unknown to plaintiff, and cannot be described herein, except that said claim is adverse End prejudicial to this plaintiff.

"Wherefore, the premises considered, the plaintiff prays the court to try, ascertain, and determine the estate, title, and interest of the plaintiff * * * and the defendant herein, respectively, in and to the real estate aforesaid and so define and adjudge by its judgment or decree, the title, estate, and interest of the parties plaintiff and defendant, severally in and to the aforementioned premises, according to the statute in such cases made end provided, and for the cost in this behalf expended."

The answer, without caption and signature, reads as follows:

"Now comes defendant, and fox her answer to the petition of the plaintiff in the above entitled cause admits that she claims title to the lands described in plaintiff's petition, and avers that she is the owner thereof. And defendant further avers that the plaintiff has no title or interest in said lands, and therefore prays that the court will define and adjudge by its proper decree her title to fie same, and for such further judgment as to the court may seem just and proper."

The case was tried without a jury, at November term, 1909, of Reynolds circuit court, and the judge thereof took said cause under advisement until the May term, 1910, and on the 6th day of June, 1910, during said May term, rendered judgment for the plaintiff. Among other recitals, said judgment contains the following:

"The court proceeds to ascertain and determine the estate, title, and interest of the parties, plaintiff and defendant, respectively, in and to the real estate described in plaintiff's petition, to wit, the N. E. ¼ of section 1, township 29 N., range 1 E., in Reynolds county, Mo.

"The court finds and adjudges that at the commencement of this suit and now, the plaintiff was and is the owner of the above-described real estate, and that the defendant herein has no title to or interest in the same. Wherefore it is ordered, adjudged, and decree: by the court that the title to said real estate be, and the same is, forever quieted in the said C. M. Buford," etc.

Defendant filed a motion for new trial in due time, and it was overruled, a bill of exceptions was filed within the time required by law, and a writ of error sued out in time, with proper notice, etc.

Plaintiff's Chain of Title.

First. Patent from the United States to Richard Mawdsley, dated August 1, 1860, a certified copy of which was filed for record in the Deed Records of Reynolds county on the 23d day of June, 1914.

Second. Warranty deed from Richard Mawdsley, single, to John W. Banks, dated June 12, 1801, recorded August 12, 1872.

Third. Warranty Geed from John W. Banks and wife to James O. Dewey, dated July 25, 1874, recorded on July 15, 1875.

Fourth. Warranty deed from James O. Dewey to A. Willard Humphreys, dated October 27, 1874, recorded August 14, 1875.

Fifth. Quitclaim deed from Willard and Mary C. Humphreys, heirs at law of A. Willard Humphreys, to James Peak, dated June 9, 1896, recorded July 14, 1896.

Sixth. Quitclaim deed from James Peak and wife to the plaintiff, C. M. Buford, dated January 3, 1907, recorded January 13, 1907; consideration, $50.

Defendant's Chain of Title.

Sheriff's deed from Richard Mawdsley and A. Willard Humphreys, by sheriff to Alexander Carter, dated November 29, 1880, recorded December 15, 1880.

Quitclaim deed from Alexander Carter, single, to William Carter, dated March 24, 1881, recorded May 8, 1883.

Quitclaim deed from William Carter, single, and Alexander Carter and wife to Yellow Pine Lumber Company, dated June 20, 1883, recorded July 11, 1883.

Special warranty deed from Yellow Pine Lumber Company to P. A. Ducey, dated January 29, 1886, recorded February 15, 1886.

Quitclaim deed from Patrick A. Ducey and wife to Wayne Lumber Company, dated May 7, 1886, recorded May 21, 1886.

Quitclaim deed from Wayne Lumber Company to Alexander Dow, dated February 15, 1898, recorded same date.

Quitclaim deed from Alexander Dow to R. A. Brown dated October 29, 1898, recorded in Book 27, page 389.

Quitclaim deed from R. A. Brown and wife to Edward W. Moore, conveying an undivided half interest, dated July 3, 1899, recorded same date.

Quitclaim deed from Edward W. Moore to Louise C. Moore, conveying his undivided half interest, dated May 25, 1908, recorded in Book 41, page 190.

Quitclaim deeds from heirs at law of R. A. Brown to defendant Louise C. Moore, conveying their undivided half interest in the premises described.

The evidence tends to show that the deeds constituting plaintiff's chain of title describe the land in controversy, while some of the deeds in defendant's chain of title describe the land in controversy and other lands.

Plaintiff supplemented his record title by reading in evidence the deposition of J. W. Pierce, who testified that A. Willard Humphreys, on February 9, 1894, killed himself in New Mexico, and was buried in New Hampshire. He also testified that A. Willard Humphreys left a wife named Mary C., and a son named Willard. The deposition of Judge Woodside was also read in evidence by plaintiff and tended to corroborate the testimony of Pierce as to Mary C. being the wife, and Willard, the son, of A. Willard Humphreys. Plaintiff then rested, and defendant interposed a demurrer to the evidence. The demurrer was overruled and defendant introduced her oral testimony as follows:

S. J. Hawkins, witness, first came to Missouri in 1902. He had power of attorney from Edward W. Moore; R. A. Brown, and from defendant, which authorized him to look after 16,200 acres of land in Reynolds county, Mo., and about 1,400 acres in Wayne county. This witness testified:

"Q. You know what is called the Pinedale farm? A. Yes, sir; sections 7 and 8, township 29, range 2 E.

"The Court: Is that this land?

"Judge Green: No, sir; a large body of land adjoining this.

"Q. Is there a farm on that land that you have described? A. Yes, sir. Q. What extent of farm? A. About 125 acres cleared, that is, in cultivation, and we are running in addition, too, a lot of pasture land connected with it."

He further testified:

"Judge Green: You say there is a house on this land-the N. E. ¼—lot 1 of the N. E. ¼? A. Yes, sir. * * * Q. Is that house inclosed by a fence, Mis. Hawkins, a fence around— A. The house is not; no, sir. Q. Well, what is there with reference to some land in cultivation? A. There is some seven or eight acres inclosed by a fence. Q. That is, on lot 1 of the S. E. ¼. ?

A. Yes, sir."

Witness said at one time he had a tenant in actual possession of the land and property; that he had paid the taxes since 1902. He leased the property aforesaid to one T. B. Taylor. This lease was dated in 1907. He paid the rent in labor. The above parties, witness said, paid more than 850,000 for the 16,200 acres of land. Taylor performed labor by looking after certain tracts of the timber on this farm. Witness left Missouri in 1907, and returned again in-January, 1908. Witness said he had five-year leases turned over to him to settle up with one Alexander Dow to all this property, and that he proceeded to settle it up; canceled it; prosecuted some one for stealing timber. He admitted, however, on cross-examination, that he did not prosecute anybody criminally, but said he did it civilly. Witness said he continued to act for Moore and wife after the death of Brown, and looked after their titles, and drove trespassers off their land, and that he looked after the payment of their taxes. He said, as the agent of defendant, he was authorized to do anything which she could do herself. He had represented Mr. Moore before the latter conveyed to defendant. Witness said the house was built on the land before Moore and Brown got it; that is, the house was on there when witness came to Missouri. He said it was on the east side of section of N. E. ¼ of section 1, very close to the line.

C. P. Goodsell: Lives in Reynolds county, and first knew the land in controversy in 1888. Witness was cutting and hauling timber off this land for the Wayne Lumber Company in 1889. The house was built in 1893 or 1894, on the land in litigation here, by one Boyles. It was a log house 16 by 16. Boyles had a family and moved into it. He was in the service of Wayne Lumber Company. Boyles did not live there quite one year. There were two other cabins built in 1894, for the men who were making ties for Wayne Lumber Company. Boyles either sold the house to Jim Marsh or gave it to him, and Marsh moved the logs to his place. These shanties, placed on the land by the tie choppers in 1894, soon thereafter disappeared. He said there was a house put on the land about four or five years before the time of trial, or about 1904, or 1905. Nobody was living in it at time of trial. Witness knew of no one in possession of land at time of trial. He said a man by the name of Smith had recently moved away from there. Witness, on cross-examination, further testified:

"Q. Did you talk to...