Craig v, Bright

• Decision Date: 05 July 1919
• Docket Number: No. 20250,20250
• Citation: 213 S.W. 845
• Parties: CRAIG v. BRIGHT
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

213 S.W. 845

CRAIG v. BRIGHT

No. 20250

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.

July 5, 1919.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Stoddard County; W. S. C. Walker, Judge.

Action by Mrs. Amanda M. Craig against Jacob Bright and others. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

No pleadings have been presented for our consideration, in either the abstract of record or briefs of the respective parties, and but little of the evidence. We gather, however, from the record before us, that on October 10, 1916, appellant commenced this action in the circuit court of Stoddard county, Mo., against Jacob Bright, C. W. Rampley, P. Habada, J. M. Greer, S. E. Proffer, and W. D. Brewster to quiet title to the lands described in petition. On December 10, 1916, the cause was dismissed as to said S. E. Proffer and W. D. Brewster. Each of the other named defendants claimed to be the owner of a certain portion of said land.

Respondents, in their present answer, pleaded that on May 1, 1913, appellant herein instituted an action in the circuit court of Stoddard county, Mo., under section 2535, R. S. 1909, to quiet title to the land in controversy, against said Bright, Greer, Habada, Rampley, Proffer, and Brewster, in which they by answer denied that appellant had any interest in said land; asserted record title thereto in themselves and title by the 10, 24, and 31 years' statutes of limitation. Said defendants, in said former litigation numbered 1039, prayed for affirmative relief in said answer, and asked the court to ascertain and determine the title to said land as between the parties to said action, including plaintiff.

On December 15, 1913, when the original case (1039) was reached for trial, the plaintiff therein was absent, and her counsel took a voluntary nonsuit. On December 15, 1913, on motion of defendants, the case was tried by the court, on the issues presented in said answer, and, after hearing the evidence, the court found in favor of said defendants, and rendered judgment in due form, against plaintiff, as prayed for in the answer. From this judgment no appeal was taken, nor was any action, so far as we are advised, ever commenced to set aside said judgment.

In the present controversy, numbered 1616, besides the defenses pleaded in the former litigation, respondents, in their answer, set up the facts aforesaid, as a defense herein, and pleaded the same as res adjudicata.

It is conceded by appellant that, if the defense of former adjudication is sustained, it will vest title in fee in defendants, to the land in controversy, regardless of the other questions relied on by respondents.

The trial court found the issues herein for respondents, and set out their respective interests in said land. It found that plaintiff (appellant) has no right, title, estate, or interest in or to the lands in controversy, or to any part thereof. The court, in its decree, after setting out the facts, in respect to the former litigation, found that the same were res adjudicata as to the issues in the present controversy. After ascertaining the interest of each respondent in said land, the court in its decree in No. 1616, divested plaintiff of any and all interest claimed in said land, vested the same in defendants, as above stated, quieted the title thereto in respondents, restrained plaintiff from claiming any further interest therein, and taxed the costs against the latter.

Plaintiff filed her motion for a new trial, which was overruled, and the cause duly appealed by her to this court.

Andrew W. Hunt, of Bloomfield, for appellant.

Wammack & Welborn, of Bloomfield, for respondents.

RAILEY, C. (after stating the facts as above).

1. The main question for consideration in the case before us arises out of the construction of section 2535, R. S. 1909, which reads as follows:

"Any person claiming...