Cantrell v. City of Caruthersville
| Decision Date | 12 May 1952 |
| Docket Number | No. 42677,No. 1,42677,1 |
| Citation | 249 S.W.2d 425 |
| Parties | CANTRELL et al. v. CITY OF CARUTHERSVILLE et al |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Von Mayes, Fred L. Henley, Caruthersville, for appellants.
Ward & Reeves, Caruthersville, for respondents.
VAN OSDOL, Commissioner.
This is an action to try, ascertain and determine title to a described small parcel of land in the City of Caruthersville, and to enjoin defendants from interfering with plaintiffs' use of the land and from instituting proceedings of condemnation. The defendant, City of Caruthersville (hereinafter referred to as 'defendant'), by its amended answer and counterclaim stated that defendant and the public have acquired an easement in the land as a part of a passageway, which, by common-law dedication and prescription, has become a public alley. Defendant prayed the court to adjudge that defendant has an easement to the use of the public; that plaintiffs be required to remove all obstructions placed by them on the tract and to deliver unto the defendant the possession of the land; and that plaintiffs be forever restrained and enjoined from obstructing or in any way interfering with the free use of the alley by the public.
The trial court found for defendant, and entered judgment determining that, although plaintiffs are the owners in fee of the described tract, their title is subject to the right of defendant City and the public to an easement and that the easement had been acquired by common-law dedication, and prescription. The court ordered and directed plaintiffs to remove all obstructions they had placed on the tract, and to deliver unto defendant City the complete possession. The court further decreed that plaintiffs be forever restrained from obstructing or in any way interfering with the use of the land by the public. Plaintiffs have appealed.
This case has been before this court before. See Cantrell v. City of Caruthersville, 359 Mo. 282, 221 S.W.2d 471. Upon the former appeal this court treated with the compulsory counterclaim provision of the Civil Code of Missouri, section 509.420 RSMo 1949, V.A.M.S. This court held that the trial court had been actually right in dismissing and abating the instant action upon plaintiffs' claim of title. Plaintiffs' claim of title should have been asserted as a counterclaim in a possessory action, ejectment, then pending in the Court of Common Pleas of Cape Girardeau County. But because we thought the views expressed by this court upon the former appeal, relating to the application of Sec. 509.420, supra, to possessory and title claims, might unjustly leave title claims in doubt, we held the effect of our decision should be prospective only.
Meanwhile the possessory action pending in the Court of Common Pleas of Cape Girardeau County, in which action the defendant herein, City of Caruthersville, was plaintiff, was tried and judgment went for plaintiff, defendant herein, February 11, 1949. Defendants in that case, plaintiffs herein, perfected their appeal to the St. Louis Court of Appeals and the judgment for plaintiff, defendant herein, was affirmed. City of Caruthersville v. Cantrell, Mo.App., 230 S.W.2d 160. However, after the mandate of this court upon the former appeal of the instant case was filed in the Circuit Court of Pemiscot County, the defendant, City of Caruthersville, filed its answer in the instant case, as we have stated supra, asserting its claim of an easement in the small tract of land, and, upon the trial of the instant case as stated, a judgment was rendered in favor of defendant City upon the issues. The St. Louis Court of Appeals in a subsequent appeal of City of Caruthersville v. Cantrell, 241 S.W.2d 790, correctly reversed the order of the Court of Common Pleas refusing to stay the execution of the judgment in the ejectment case affirmed by that court upon the former appeal. And now upon this review we examine the contentions of the parties upon issues of title evidencing ownership and right of possession as raised by and tried upon the pleadings in the instant case. We shall examine the questions whether all the rights of the parties to title, ownership and possession may now be made final and conclusive. Cantrell v. City of Caruthersville, supra.
The evidence introduced in the instant action was identical with that introduced in the trial of the possessory action, ejectment, in City of Caruthersville v. Cantrell, supra, 230 S.W.2d 160.
The transcript of the record is voluminous. Many witnesses testified concerning the use of a passageway, including this disputed tract, by the public. It would be of little service for us to restate the whole of the evidence which, as stated, was identical with the evidence introduced in the action of ejectment and which evidence was summarized by the St. Louis Court of Appeals in the case of City of Caruthersville v. Cantrell, supra, 230 S.W.2d at pages 165-166. It is sufficient for us to state the evidence of the location of the disputed tract, and of the circumstances of the construction of a 'concrete block loading platform' which gave rise to the instant litigation.
The small parcel of land involved herein is forty-eight feet long and eight feet wide. It lies within the area of a passageway eighteen feet wide, which passageway passes northwardly one hundred forty feet from the north side of Fourth Street (in Caruthersville) through Block Nine and intersects the south side of a regularly platted public alley. The building on the land owned by plaintiffs fronts westwardly on Ward Avenue, the east side of which avenue is one hundred one feet west of the west side of the passageway. Buildings on either side delineate the passageway, save and except the rear end of plaintiffs' building does not extend eastwardly to the west side of the passageway. There is an irregularly-shaped recessed open area of about seven hundred square feet between the rear end of plaintiffs' building and the west side of the passageway. Some time about the year 1947, plaintiffs constructed a concrete block loading platform at the northeast corner of the recessed area. The concrete platform extends out into the passageway obstructing the way to the extent of eight feet eight inches.
In our opinion the weight of the evidence supports the trial court's apparent conclusions that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cantrell v. City of Caruthersville, 1713.
...of Caruthersville v. Cantrell, Mo. App., 230 S.W.2d 160. 3 See Cantrell v. City of Caruthersville, 359 Mo. 282, 221 S.W.2d 471; Id., Mo., 249 S.W.2d 425; Id., 363 Mo. 988, 255 S.W.2d 785. Plaintiffs' pleading recites the history of a suit for a declaratory judgment in the state court but it......
-
Cantrell v. City of Caruthersville, 45147
...and dismissing their petition. The judgment was based on the ground of res judicata. The judgment is affirmed. See Cantrell v. City of Caruthersville, Mo.Sup., 249 S.W.2d 425; Cantrell v. City of Caruthersville, 363 Mo. 988, 255 S.W.2d 785; Cantrell v. City of Caruthersville, Mo.Sup., 267 S......
-
City of Steelville v. Scott
...is without merit. The remedies pursued by the City were the same as those of the successful municipality in Cantrell v. City of Caruthersville, 249 S.W.2d 425 (Mo.1952). That does not mean, however, that the Scotts had no right to a jury on the quiet title issue. In Huter v. Birk, 510 S.W.2......
-
Cantrell v. City of Caruthersville
...not appear. Defendant city's motion stated as grounds therefor, among others, that a former judgment, affirmed in Cantrell v. City of Caruthersville, Mo.Sup., 249 S.W.2d 425, bars the instant action; and that no adversary dispute or controversy was stated by plaintiffs calling for the relie......