Dawkins v. Griffin

• Decision Date: 30 March 1906
• Citation: 195 Mo. 430,94 S.W. 525
• Parties: DAWKINS v. GRIFFIN.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

94 S.W. 525

195 Mo. 430

DAWKINS v. GRIFFIN.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.

March 30, 1906.

EJECTMENT—IMPROVEMENTS—PROFITS.

By Rev. St. 1899, §§ 3067, 3068, a successful plaintiff in ejectment is entitled to the monthly value of the rents and profits, and section 3072 provides that if a judgment of dispossession be given against one in possession he may recover in a court of competent jurisdiction compensation for improvements made by him in good faith. In ejectment plaintiff was found entitled to possession, and defendant to have made improvements in good faith, and judgment was rendered giving plaintiff possession on condition that he pay defendant $200 for improvements, and it was provided that if he should fail to do so, and defendants should pay $50, the value of the land, title should be vested in defendant. Held, that the judgment was unauthorized and should have been for plaintiff for possession, and for so much rents and profits as the amount of their value might exceed the improvements, and if the value of the latter exceeded the former plaintiff should have judgment only for recovery of possession and rents and profits after judgment.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Chariton County; John P. Butler, Judge.

Action by William A. Dawkins against Joseph C. Griffin. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff granting insufficient relief, he appeals. Reversed and remanded, with directions as to the judgment to be entered.

O. F. Smith, for appellant. J. A. Collet, for respondent.

BRACE, P. J.

This is an action in ejectment to recover possession of a small tract of land in Chariton county, described in the petition by metes and bounds, and containing 97-100 of an acre. The petition is in common form. The answer a general denial, and a plea as follows: "And for a further answer to plaintiff's petition defendant says: That in the early part of the year 1898 he was living with his family on a small farm of 40 acres of land lying in the neighborhood of the land in controversy and near where plaintiff then lived and now lives, which said 40-acre farm was heavily mortgaged, defendant having a small equity in said farm; that plaintiff induced defendant to sell his said equity in said farm and move therefrom upon the premises, and representations made by plaintiff to defendant that if he, Griffin, would sell said farm and move upon and improve it for his home, the land described in plaintiff's petition, which land was then a small unimproved parcel of land lying between the public road and the Chariton river, and fit only for the building thereon of a small residence property, and worth not more than $10, if in fact it was worth that much, and would lease, clear and cultivate certain land belonging to plaintiff which he desired to have cultivated, that he, plaintiff, would convey to defendant said real estate in plaintiff's petition described. That defendant acting upon the advice and recommendation of plaintiff, and representations of plaintiff so made as aforesaid, sold his said farm and at a large expense in money and labor, made lasting and valuable improvements upon said real estate, in plaintiff's petition described, and moved thereon, and has ever since occupied said property as his residence; that he leased, cleaned, improved, and cultivated other lands of plaintiff's as per their agreement in that regard until the year 1901 when plaintiff refused to permit defendant to longer cultivate said land, and demanded that defendant remove from the property he had improved for his residence as aforesaid, refused to convey said real estate to defendant as he obligated himself to do as above set out. Wherefore, by reason of the promises defendant prays the court for a decree divesting plaintiff of the title to said real estate in plaintiff's petition described and vesting the title thereto into defendant and for all proper relief." The reply was a general denial.

The case was tried before the court without a jury. On the trial it was admitted that the legal title was in the plaintiff, and that the defendant was in possession of the premises. It appears from the evidence that the defendant went into possession of the premises about the 1st of March, 1898, and ever since has remained in possession of the same; that at the time he went into possession there was a small boxhouse on the premises; that plaintiff was a carpenter; that thereafter he erected an addition to the house of two rooms and also a barn or stable; that the value of the premises at the time defendant took possession was about $50, and the value of the improvements afterwards put upon the lot was about $200; that the plaintiff furnished the hard-wood lumber for the improvements, and the defendant furnished the other materials and did the work. The relative values contributed by each to the whole value of the improvements does not appear. The evidence tended to prove that the value of the rents and profits of the premises was about $4 per month after the improvements were made and about $2 per month before, and that plaintiff paid all the taxes thereon. The only evidence in support of the contract set up in the defendant's plea was that of himself. He testified as follows: "Q. Go on and state the agreement you had with Mr. Dawkins, and what was the consideration offered to you, the promises made? A. He made a proposal to me to come down there and build on that little three-cornered piece of land and he would give it to me. First said he would give it to me, and I told him I didn't think I was able to build a house. I would go and see if I could get the shingles and nails. I went to see Mr. Holcomb and got it. After I got on the wagon I asked him how he wanted me to make it good. He says: `It is all right—Mr. Dawkins said he would fix it.' Mr. Dawkins gave his note and said I could have this piece of ground, and I goes ahead and builds a house the first winter. I moved there the 1st day of March, 1897. I think it was six years ago next March. I have been there six years, I think, if I am not mistaken. The first winter following I was pretty hard run and couldn't build no barn, and I rented a little stable, and along in the winter Mr. Dawkins gave me a raking for not building a barn. I went ahead and built the barn and I told him—I says, `I wish you would give me a bond for a deed,' and he said, `Go ahead.' And I told him as soon as I paid them notes off he could give me a bond for a deed, and he said, `Yes go ahead,' and I finished paying the notes off to-day, and he gave me notice to-morrow to leave, and I paid for the material and did the work. Q. ...