Connor Realty Co. v. Sparlin

• Citation: 190 S.W. 6
• Decision Date: 06 December 1916
• Docket Number: No. 17963.,17963.
• Parties: CONNOR REALTY CO. et al. v. SPARLIN.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Missouri

190 S.W. 6

CONNOR REALTY CO. et al. v. SPARLIN.

No. 17963.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.

December 6, 1916.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Newton County; Carr McNatt, Judge.

Suit in ejectment by the Connor Realty Company and another against Halley Sparlin. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.

This is a suit in ejectment for the northeast fourth of the southeast quarter of section 19, township 25, range 33, in Newton county, and was begun on March 18, 1912. The answer is a general denial. There was a verdict and judgment for defendant, and the plaintiffs have appealed.

About 1868, Anna Bard, a widow with several children, built a log house and a barn on the land and cleared and inclosed about 13 acres of it. She lived on the land until March 28, 1890, when she conveyed it by warranty deed to her son Clay Bard for the expressed consideration of one dollar, she having previously married Mr. Wacaser. That deed was promptly recorded. Clay Bard lived on the land until his death in 1894. He left a widow, Mattie Bard, and four small children. Mattie Bard continued to reside on the land until she conveyed it to the defendant by quitclaim deed dated December 16, 1905, for the expressed consideration of $150. Defendant lived on the land from that time until the institution of this suit. During all the time from 1868 to the filing of the petition herein the defendant and those under whom he claims have lived on the land, cultivating the inclosed portion. The remainder of the land is on the bluff, fit only for timber and grazing. The evidence shows that the land in that locality is very rough and broken, and that after the War many persons "squatted" on land there, having and claiming no title to the land on which they lived. It is conceded that the plaintiffs have the documentary title to the land and are entitled to recover unless the defendant has acquired title by the adverse possession of those under whom he claims.

There is evidence on both sides of the question as to whether the Bards claimed to own the land, or whether they were mere squatters, and as to whether their possession was open, notorious, actual, exclusive, and adverse. Mattie Bard during the 12 years from her husband's death in 1894 to the time of her conveyance to defendant paid no taxes on the land. Whether her husband or his mother or the plaintiffs herein or those under whom they claim ever paid any taxes on the land does not appear. Mattie Bard testified that she and her husband lived on the land with his mother from 1887 until the mother conveyed to the son in 1890; that the mother claimed to own the land, and her husband claimed to own it after he got his deed; and that she claimed that she and her children owned it after her husband's death. She testified that they were not squatters.

The plaintiffs, in contradiction of her, read in evidence her deposition, in which she testified that both her husband and she, during the time they held the land, were intending to get the title from the government. She further stated in such deposition that she only sold the improvements and a cow and calf to Sparlin, and not the land. On her cross-examination at the trial she testified as follows:

"Q. During your husband's lifetime did he ever intend to get a title from the government? A. Yes, sir; he was working at it all the time. Q. From whom was he trying to get a title? A. I don't know. Q. He thought this was government land, did he? A. I don't know whether he did or not. Q. Why was he trying to get a title from the government? Mr. Ruark: She didn't say he was trying to get it from the government. Witness: I didn't say that he was trying to get a title from the government. I said he was trying to get it all the time. Mr. Cravens: Q. You have said it heretofore, that he was trying to get it from the government? A. No, sir."

Plaintiffs read in evidence a deposition of the defendant in which he, in effect, admitted that he only bought the improvements on the land from Mattie Bard, and that he did not claim the land under her deed until afterward when he found that she had a deed to the land.

At the close of the evidence, the plaintiffs asked an instruction in the nature of a demurrer to defendant's evidence. It was refused. The court also refused plaintiffs' first, second, and third instructions. The first and second required the jury to find for the plaintiffs unless they found that the defendant and those under whom he claims acted with reference to the land as a...