Byrne v. Byrne

• Decision Date: 11 July 1921
• Parties: ALICE BYRNE, Appellant, v. JOHN T. BYRNE et al
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

233 S.W. 461

289 Mo. 109

ALICE BYRNE, Appellant, v. JOHN T. BYRNE et al

Supreme Court of Missouri, First Division

July 11, 1921

Appeal from Ste. Genevieve Circuit Court. -- Hon. Peter H. Huck Judge.

Reversed and remanded (in part); Affirmed (in part).

John S Marsalek, P. H. Cullen and Albert Miller for appellant.

(1) The pendency of the suit to contest the will of Patrick Byrne Sr., was and is sufficient to prevent the running of the Statute of Limitations against the claim of his grandchild, Alice Byrne. Tapley v. McPike, 50 Mo. 592; Johnson v. Brewn, 210 S.W. 55; Jourden v. Meier, 31 Mo. 44; R. S. 1919, sec. 2005; Spratt v. Lawson, 176 Mo. 182; Snell v. Harrison, 131 Mo. 503; Hall v. French, 165 Mo. 442; Norton v. Reed, 253 Mo. 236, 161 S.W. 842; Estes v. Nell, 140 Mo. 639; De Both v. Coal Min. Co., 141 Mo. 497; Sanford v. Herron, 161 Mo. 176, 84 Am. St. 703; 2 Wood on Limitations (4 Ed.), sec 253; 17 R. C. L sec. 228; Hutchinson v. Hutchinson, 92 Kan. 518, 141 P. 589, 52 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1165 and note; Harvey v. Pflug, 37 La. Ann. 904; 25 Cyc. 1278; Backus v. Burke, 65 N.W. 459; Snouffer v. City of Tipton, 142 N.W. 97; Klumpp v. Thomas, 162 F. 853, 89 C. C. A. 543; King v. Pomeroy, 121 F. 287, 58 C. C. A. 209; Harrison v. Scott, 77 Kan. 637, 95 P. 1045; Walterscheid v. Bowdish, 77 Kan. 665, 96 P. 56; Steffins v. Gurney, 61 Kan. 292, 59 P. 725; City of Hutchinson v. Hutchinson, 92 Kan. 518, 141 P. 589; St. Paul Ry. Co. v. Olson, 87 Minn. 117, 91 N.W. 294, 94 Am. St. 693; Downer v. Union Land Co., 103 Minn. 392, 115 N.W. 207. (2) In partition proceedings the court has jurisdiction and authority to take an accounting of rents accrued and debts due the estate of the ancestor, and may consider any defense, whether legal or equitable. Rozier v. Griffith, 31 Mo. 171; Budde v. Rebenack, 137 Mo. 179; Chamber v. Waples, 193 Mo. 96; Green v. Walker, 99 Mo. 68. (3) Where a co-tenant has been ousted and his right to the possession of the premises denied, the ousting co-tenants are liable for the rents and profits. Gage v. Gage, 28 L. R. A. 832, note; Schuster v. Schuster, 29 L. R. A. (N. S.) 228, note; Doerner v. Doerner, 161 Mo. 407; Goodenow v. Ewer, 16 Cal. 461; Scantlin v. Allison, 32 Kan. 376; Bowles v. Bowles, 80 Ky. 529; Real Estate Savings Inst. v. Collonious, 63 Mo. 290; Holloway v. Holloway, 97 Mo. 640; Coberly v. Coberly, 189 Mo. 2; 38 Cyc. 63, 66; Bates v. Hamilton, 144 Mo. 1, 13; Sears v. Sallow, 28 Iowa 501; 17 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law (2 Ed.), 694; Starks v. Kirchgraber, 134 Mo.App. 214; 7 R. C. L. 828; 18 Ann. Cases, 1086, note; Tyler v. Cartwright, 40 Mo.App. 384; Childs v. Railroad, 117 Mo. 435; 1 C. J. 625; Hack v. Norris, 46 Mich. 587, 10 N.W. 104; Roosevelt v. Post, 1 Edw. (N.Y.) 579; Dormer v. Fortescue, 3 Atk. 124, 26 Reprint, 875; Doane v. Wade, 1 Ch. Rep. 48, 21 Reprint, 504; Hicks v. Sallitt, 3 De G. M. & G. 782, 52 Eng. Ch. 609, 43 Reprint, 307; Blackwood v. Gregg, Hayes & J. 310; Bolton v. Doane, Pree. Ch. 516, 24 Reprint, 231. (4) In such cases the cotenant so taking possession of the entire property must answer for the value of the use and occupation, regardless of the actual income received. 18 Ann. Cases, 1086, note; 7 R. C. L. 828; 7 R. C. L. 835; White v. Stuart, 76 Va. 546, 567; L. R. A. 1918-B, 607, note; Dunbar v. Dunbar, 163 S.W. 1159; Brown v. Brown, 209 Mass. 388, 395; Adams v. Bristol, 111 N.Y.S. 231; Phoenix Land Co. v. Exall, 159 S.W. (Tex. Civ. App.) 474. (5) In a partition proceeding the court is authorized to take into account any property which the other joint owners received from the co-ancestor, whether this property is real or personal, and to charge the party so receiving it with its full value. Ayres v. King, 168 Mo. 244; Traders Bank v. Dennis Estate, 221 S.W. 796; Trabue v. Henderson, 180 Mo. 616; Wright v. Green, 239 Mo. 449; Wilson v. Charmel, 102 Kan. 793, 1 A. L. R. 987, and note, pp. 991 to 1047; Boothe v. Cheek, 253 Mo. 131; State ex rel. v. Guinotte, 156 Mo. 519; Hughes v. Burriss, 85 Mo. 660; Carson v. Suggetts, 34 Mo. 365; Warren v. Ry. Conductors of America, 199 Mo.App. 209. (6) Interest is allowed on rents found due from one co-tenant to another, where the withholding is wrongful, as where the tenant holds adversely. Bates v. Hamilton, 144 Mo. 1; Schuster v. Schuster, 29 L. R. A. (N. S.) 233, note; Gage v. Gage, 28 L. R. A. 853, note; 38 Cyc. 71; Real Estate Inst. v. Collonious, 63 Mo. 290; Johnson v. Pelot, 24 S.C. 254, 58 Am. Rep. 253; 1 Story, Eq. Jur. sec. 655; Thurston v. Dickinson, 2 Rich. Eq. 317, 46 Am. Dec. 56; Dellet v. Whitner, Chev. Eq. 223; Hancock v. Day, McMull Eq. 69, 36 Am. Dec. 293; Hall v. Boatwright, 58 S.C. 544; Carson v. Broady, 56 Nebr. 648; Jefferson City Savings Assn. v. Morrison, 48 Mo. 274; 22 Syc. 1551; 1 Sutherland on Damages (4 Ed.), sec. 352; Early v. Friend, 16 Gratt, 21, 78 Am. Dec. 664; Lowndes v. City Nat. Bank, 82 Conn. 8, 22 L. R. A. (N. S.) 408; Jones v. Williams, 2 Call. 85; Dow v. Adams, 5 Munf. 21; Nuckit v. Lawrence, 5 Rand, 571; Currier v. Kretzinger, 162 Ill. 511, 58 Ill.App. 288; Leete v. Pacific M. & M. Co., 89 F. 480; Starks v. Kirchgraber, 134 Mo.App. 216; Tarleton v. Goldthwaite's Heirs, 58 Am. Dec. (Ala.) 302; Whitworth v. Hart, 22 Ala. 343; Van Ormer v. Harley, 102 Iowa 150, 71 N.W. 241; Myers v. Bolton, 157 N.Y. 393; Armijo v. Neher, 11 N. M. 645, 72 P. 12; Sieger v. Sieger, 209 Pa. 65; Watts v. Watts, 104 Va. 269. (7) A co-tenant cannot recover for improvements made on the common property when not made in good faith, or while the title to the property was in litigation. Turner v. Edmonston, 210 Mo. 413; Buford v. Packet Co., 3 Mo.App. 159; Bailey v. Wenn, 113 Mo. 155; Dodd v. Lee, 57 Mo.App. 167. (8) To permit the sons of Patrick Byrne to allege that their mother held the home place under quarantine rights of a widow is to permit them to assume inconsistent positions with reference to the same subject-matter heretofore litigated, and they are debarred and estopped from so doing. Lilly v. Menke, 143 Mo. 144; Lilly v. Menke, 126 Mo. 190; Catholic Church v. Tobbein, 82 Mo. 418; Lilly v. Tobbein, 103 Mo. 477; McClanahan v. West, 100 Mo. 322; Benseick v. Cook, 110 Mo. 182; Mining Co. v. Casualty Co., 161 Mo.App. 200; State v. Baker, 262 Mo. 698; St. Louis v. United Rys. 263 Mo. 427; Bigelow on Estoppel (5 Ed.), 673, 717; Brown v. Bowen, 90 Mo. 184; Smiley v. Cockrell, 92 Mo. 105; Knoop v. Kelsey, 102 Mo. 291; Tower v. Moore, 52 Mo. 118; Chouteau v. Gibson, 76 Mo. 38; McGuire v. Nugent, 103 Mo. 161; Hill's Admr. v. Huckabee's Admr., 70 Ala. 183; Railroad v. Howard, 13 How. (U.S.) 337; Caldwell v. Smith, 77 Ala. 157; 10 R. C. L. sec. 20, p. 691, sec. 26, p. 698, sec. 29, p. 702; Scanlon v. Walshe, 81 Md. 118; Norfolk Ry. Co. v. Turnpike Co., 111 Va. 131, Ann. Cas. 1912A, 239; R. S. 1909, sec. 360; 9 R. C. L. sec. 43, p. 601. (9) After the lapse of ten years, the widow's right to dower is forever barred, and she may waive her dower rights orally. R. S. 1909, sec. 391; Casteel v. Potter, 176 Mo. 76; R. S. 1909, secs. 114, 115; Johns v. Fenton, 88 Mo. 64; 14 Cyc. 774; Lenfers v. Henke, 73 Ill. 405, 24 Am. Dec. 268; Pearce v. Pearce, 184 Ill. 289; Sill v. Sill, 185 Ill. 594.

Clyde Williams and John H. Reppy for respondents.

(1) Tenant in common who makes improvements upon premises and pays taxes is entitled to compensation. 30 Cyc. 233; Armor v. Frey, 253 Mo. 447; Gunn v. Thurston, 130 Mo. 344; Holloway v. Holloway, 97 Mo. 639; Green v. Walker, 99 Mo. 72; Grogan v. Grogan, 177 S.W. 649. (2) The measure of the allowance is the increased value of premises by reason of the improvements. Armor v. Frey, 253 Mo. 477. (3) Rents and profits cannot be increased by reason of improvements placed on premises by the tenant. 30 Cyc. 234; Worthington v. Hiss, 16 A. 534; Johnson v. Pelot, 24 S.C. 255; Rice v. Freeland, 12 Cush. (Mass.) 170; 22 Cyc. 6; Armor v. Frey, 253 Mo. 479. (4) Action for an accounting for rents and profits received barred in five years. Stark v. Kirchgraber, 134 Mo.App. 218, 180 Mo. 633; Names v. Names, 67 N. W. (Neb.) 754; Sommers v. Bennett, 69 S. E. (W. Va.) 696; Lilly v. Menke, 126 Mo. 190. (5) Widow may occupy and use the home farm or plantation without being liable to pay rent for same and this right continues until dower is assigned. Gentry v. Gentry, 122 Mo. 202; Phillips v. Presson, 172 Mo. 27; Carey v. West, 176 Mo. 178; Melton v. Fitch, 125 Mo. 290; Givens v. Ott, 222 Mo. 420; Roberts v. Nelson, 86 Mo. 21; Osborn v. Weldon, 146 Mo. 185; Reed v. Lowe, 163 Mo. 519; Thomas v. Black, 113 Mo. 66; Barris v. Emmons, 139 N. E. (Mich.) 872; Sec. 334, R. S. 1919; Powell v. Bowen, 279 Mo. 293; Graham v. Stafford, 171 Mo. 692. (6) The order of the probate court approving the final settlement of the estate of Patrick Byrne is a judgment which remains in full force and effect until set aside by proper proceeding, and an action for that purpose cannot be brought now because barred by the Statutes of Limitations. Van Bibber v. Julian, 81 Mo. 627; Smith v. Hauger, 150 Mo. 437; Patterson v. Booth, 103 Mo. 417; State ex rel. v. Carroll, 101 Mo.App. 113. (7) Interest cannot be allowed on rents and profits of bequests. Sec. 7179, R. S. 1909; Coombes v. Knowlson, 193 Mo.App. 560; Ry. Co. v. Knapp-Stout & Co., 160 Mo. 417; Nelson v. Hirsch & Sons Co., 102 Mo.App. 516; Nelson v. Wynan, 21 Mo. 352; Ray v. Loper, 65 Mo. 470; Ladd v. Stephens, 147 Mo. 319.

SMALL, C. Ragland, C., concurs; Brown, C., not sitting.

OPINION

SMALL, C. --

Suit in partition in equity. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Ste Genevieve County, to which the case was taken by change of venue from Jefferson County, where the land was located. The land belonged to Patrick Byrne, Sr., at the time of his death. He died on July 5, 1891, leaving a purported will which was admitted to probate ...