Eads v. Wooldridge

• Decision Date: 31 July 1858
• Citation: 27 Mo. 251
• Parties: EADS et al., Respondents, v. WOOLDRIDGE, Appellant.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

27 Mo. 251

EADS et al., Respondents,

v.WOOLDRIDGE, Appellant.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

July Term, 1858.

1. The official character of school trustees may be proved by their acts and conduct as such; the oaths of office filed by them with the clerks of the County Courts and their official bonds are competent evidence to prove such official character.

2. In an action of forcible entry and detainer, in case of a verdict for the complainant, the jury may assess damages for all waste and injury committed upon the premises as well as for all rents and profits of the same up to the time of the rendition of the verdict.

Appeal from Cooper Court of Common Pleas.

This was an action of forcible entry and detainer brought by plaintiffs, as trustees of school district No. 2, of township 48, range 17, in Cooper county, to recover possession of a lot of ground with a school-house thereon.

At the trial, the plaintiffs, to prove their official character, introduced the clerk of the County Court, who produced the affidavits and bonds of plaintiffs, as trustees of said school district, and offered to prove by said clerk that the plaintiffs had taken the oaths required by law of school trustees; that Eads had given bond as president, and that plaintiffs were acting as trustees on the 22d of March, 1858. The court overruled the objection of defendant to this testimony and admitted the same. It also appeared that school had been kept in the house in question for ten years, but that none was kept therein at the commencement of this suit; that defendant removed the furniture of the school-house and took possession thereof, and refused to admit the trustees to occupy the same as a school-house. The plaintiffs also introduced in evidence the following instrument in writing, executed by defendant: “Know all men by these presents, that, whereas, Samuel Wooldridge, by these presents, hereby grants unto the trustees of school district No. 2, township 48, range 17, a perpetual lease of one acre lot or parcel of land, the said land being that upon which the school-house of said district is now situated; the understanding of this contract is that the aforesaid one acre lot or parcel of land is to remain subject to the trustees of said district as long as it may be wanted for school purposes; and it is not to be inferred or presumed that the said land may not be wanted for school purposes in case the district should become disorganized, unless it should so remain for the terms of three years, at the expiration of which time it may revert back unto the said Samuel Wooldridge, his heirs or assigns. Given under my hand and seal the 18th day of June, 1854. [Signed] Samuel Wooldridge. (Seal.)”

The court, at the instance of the plaintiffs, gave the following instructions: “1. If the jury believe from the evidence that the plaintiffs were in possession of the school-house at the time mentioned in the complaint, and the defendant entered and took possession of the same by means of a false key, or by forcing off or bursting the lock, or by breaking open or forcing the door, or by breaking the window or any part of the building, this amounts to a forcible entry in contemplation of law. 2. To establish the plaintiffs' possession, it is not necessary that they, or either of them, should have been in the actual occupancy of the house; a man may have the possession of a house otherwise than by living in it; he may have part of his goods there; and if the jury find from the evidence that the desks, stove, benches, or any furniture belonging to the school district mentioned in the complaint were in the school-house, and the plaintiffs, or either of them, had locked the house and had the key, then the plaintiffs, in contemplation of law, were in possession. 3. If the jury find for the plaintiffs, they will assess damages for all waste and injury committed upon the premises, as well as for all rents and profits of said premises up to the present time.”

The jury found for plaintiffs.

Douglass & Hayden, for appellant.

1. There was no legal evidence that the plaintiffs were trustees of school district No. 2. The affidavits and bonds of plaintiffs produced by the county clerk were not admissible in evidence to prove that plaintiffs were trustees. There was better evidence of that fact, and its absence was unaccounted for. (R. C. p. 1434.) Only examined copies of the originals could be received in evidence. The acts of the trustees might be evidence against them, but not for them. (Greenl. Ev. §§56, 92; 8 T. R. 303; Gilbert v. Boyd, 25 Mo. 29.) The court erred in refusing the second instruction asked by the defendant. (4 Johns. 418; Wood v. Leadbitter, 10 M. & W. 837; 10 Conn. 375; 2 Amer. Lead. Cas. 677.) The instrument signed by Wooldridge was nothing...