Comer v. Statham

• Decision Date: 18 March 1903
• Parties: COMER v. STATHAM et al.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

72 S.W. 1074

173 Mo. 246

COMER v. STATHAM et al.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.

March 18, 1903.

APPEAL—OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE.

1. Technical objections to plaintiff's evidence of title in ejectment cannot be considered on appeal, no specific objections thereto or rulings thereon having been made below, but merely a motion for judgment on the evidence, which was overruled without exceptions to the ruling.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Ray County; E. J. Broaddus, Judge.

Action by George E. Comer against Charles Statham and another. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Ball & Bogie, for appellants. Lavelock & Kirkpatrick, for respondent.

BRACE, P. J.

This is an action in ejectment to recover possession of the N. W. ¼ of the S. E. ¼ of section 36, township 54, range 26, in Ray county.

The petition is in common form. The answer admits possession, denies the other allegations of the petition, and pleads the statute of limitations. Issue was joined by reply. The case was tried before the court without a jury. Finding and judgment for the plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Since the appeal Charles Statham has died, leaving the other defendant, Esther A. Statham, his wife, the sole appellant in the case.

The bill of exceptions opens with the following recital: "Plaintiff offers in evidence the following records of conveyances in the office of recorder of deeds, and probate office in Ray county, Missouri, showing chain of title to the northwest quarter of the southeast quarter of section thirty-six (36) in township fifty-four (54), of range twenty-six (26) in said Ray county, this being the land in controversy, which records are now admitted by the court, subject to all legal objections, and by agreement the abstract of the conveyances only are set out, except two, which are given in full." Then follows an abstract of conveyances showing a complete unbroken chain of record title in the plaintiff from the United States, then some oral evidence upon the issue of adverse possession, and the rental value of the premises; and plaintiff rested. Thereupon defendants moved for judgment on the evidence, which motion was overruled, and no exception taken to the ruling.

Some technical objections are now here urged against the two muniments of title set out in the abstract. But it does not appear that these, or any specific objections, were made by the defendants to this evidence on the trial, that any ruling was made by the court thereupon, or that any exception was taken to any ruling of the court upon this or any other evidence. Hence these objections cannot be considered on appeal. The rule on this subject is so uniform, well settled, and has been so often stated, that it is only necessary to cite some of the cases. Adair...