Byars v. Howe
Decision Date | 09 October 1925 |
Docket Number | 25044 |
Citation | 276 S.W. 43,311 Mo. 14 |
Parties | FRANKIE BYARS et al., Appellants, v. McCABE HOWE et al |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Audrain Circuit Court; Hon. Ernest S. Gantt Judge.
Reversed and remanded.
Clarence A. Barnes for appellants.
(1) Every one who has any interest in the cause of action alleged against defendants has been joined as plaintiffs. Scott v. Alton Banking Co., 175 S.W. 922. (2) Plaintiffs W Latney Barnes, J. Garrett Barnes, Ben C. Barnes and Clarence A. Barnes are necessary parties to a complete determination of this suit. The statutes require that every person having any interest in the premises, whether in possession or otherwise, shall be made a party to such petition. R. S 1919, sec. 1998. (3) The Barnes brothers were proper parties. Harbison v. Sanford, 90 Mo. 477; Grogan v. Grogan, 177 S.W. 649; Reinhardt v. Wendeck, 40 Mo. 577; Yates v. Johnson, 87 Mo. 213; Estes v. Nell, 108 Mo. 172; Hiles v. Rule, 121 Mo. 248. (4) The petition does not allege defendant McCabe Howe has any estate in the lands sought to be partitioned. It alleges defendant Marian Barnes Howe is the heir and only heir at law of Irma Barnes Howe, deceased, and that the interest of defendant Marian Barnes Howe is an undivided one-fifth, subject to the possible claim of curtesy therein of defendant McCabe Howe. McCabe Howe thereby became a necessary party. Carson v. Hecke, 282 Mo. 580; Tilton v. Vail, 53 Hun. (N. Y.) 324; Hicks v. Estes, 214 S.W. 159. (5) The respondents are now departing from the theory of their interlocutory judgment obtained upon their demurrer, and for the first time urge that the defendants belong to different classes, between which the statute authorizes partition. Sec. 1995, R. S. 1919, expressly includes curtesy, with estates held as tenancy in common, or coparcenary. But if there cannot be partition as to the curtesy estate in the undivided one-fifth of Marian Barnes Howe, the petition nevertheless stated a good cause of action, as between all parties save McCabe Howe, and he was at least a proper, and we believe a necessary party.
Rodgers & Buffington for respondents.
Plaintiffs Barnes had no estate in the land involved which could be the subject of partition. Sec. 1995, R. S. 1919, sets forth by whom partition proceedings can be brought as parties plaintiff and provides for four distinct classes, namely: co-tenants in fee, co-tenants for life, co-tenants for years, co-tenants by curtesy and in dower. But all the party plaintiffs must belong to one and the same class. A tenant for years cannot have partition against a tenant for life or in fee, or vice versa, unless possibly by mutually consent; but in the case at bar defendant McCabe Howe is resisting partition, and Marian Barnes Howe, a minor is not only resisting, but being a minor, cannot consent. The Barnes brothers with respect to the land in suit are neither tenants in fee, for life, for years, or by curtesy or dower; hence not being in any of the four classes enumerated under the statute, they have no standing in court as parties plaintiff in a partition suit. Benton Land Co. v. Zeitler, 182 Mo. 267. Hence the Barnes brothers have no estate whatsoever in the land, but are mere lien-holders. Gray v. Clements, 277 S.W. 112. Parties must all belong to the same class in an action for partition. White v. Summerville, 223 S.W. 103; Gray v. Clements, 246 S.W. 942.
Suit for partition of real property in Audrain County, commenced on August 31, 1922. Plaintiffs' petition alleges: "Come now the plaintiffs herein and state that plaintiffs Frankie Byars, Blonda Hudson, Clarence Hudson, J. Garrett Barnes, Ben C. Barnes and Clarence A. Barnes are resident citizens of Audrain County, Missouri, and plaintiff W. Latney Barnes is a resident citizen of the city of Amarillo, County of Potter, State of Texas; and that defendants McCabe Howe and Marian Barnes Howe are resident citizens of the city of Lima, County of Allen and State of Ohio.
The sole defendants are McCabe Howe and his infant daughter, Marian Barnes Howe. The defendant Marian Barnes Howe, being a minor, the trial court appointed Harry G. Stocks as guardian ad litem to represent her in said action. In due time the guardian ad litem filed his written acceptance of said appointment, together with an answer to the petition on behalf of his ward. Defendant McCabe Howe also filed answer to the petition. Thereafter, by order entered of record, the two answering defendants were given leave to withdraw their respective answers and to file demurrer. The demurrer so filed by defendants is as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Virgin v. Kennedy
...subject to a life estate. [Atkinson v. Brady, 114 Mo. 200, 21 S.W. 480; Carson v. Hecke, 282 Mo. 580, 593, 222 S.W. 850; Byars v. Howe, 311 Mo. 14, 276 S.W. 43.] If commissioners, after setting off the land in question to Taylor for life, had allotted it in fee to another without specifying......
-
Davis v. Austin
...v. Monticello Inv. Co., 330 Mo. 1128, 52 S.W.2d 545, l. c. 550.] To sustain his position, appellant cites the case of Byars v. Howe, 311 Mo. 14, 276 S.W. 43. That was expressly overruled by the case of Renard v. Butler, 325 Mo. 961, 30 S.W.2d 608. Since appellant claims that he is the sole ......
-
Willhite v. Rathburn
...under the statute. There may be partition among the cotenants in fee but not of the cotenants in fee and the life tenant. Byars v. Howe, 276 S.W. 43, 311 Mo. 14. (c) Under the above section as to partition, such suit not lie by life tenant and her husband against remaindermen in fee. Gray v......
-
Willhite v. Rathburn
...under the statute. There may be partition among the cotenants in fee but not of the cotenants in fee and the life tenant. Byars v. Howe, 276 S.W. 43, 311 Mo. 14. (c) Under the above section as to partition, such suit does not lie by life tenant and her husband against remaindermen in fee. G......