Eaton v. Cates

• Decision Date: 01 April 1915
• Docket Number: No. 17085.,17085.
• Citation: Eaton v. Cates, 175 S.W. 950 (Mo. 1915)
• Parties: EATON v. CATES et al.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

175 S.W. 950

EATON v.CATES et al.

No. 17085.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.

April 1, 1915.

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

Action by Wm. Eaton against Mary E. Cates and others.From a judgment for defendants, plaintiff appeals.Reversed, and remanded for new trial.

This suit was brought in the circuit court of Stoddard county by the plaintiff against the defendant, under the statute, to quiet the title to 32 acres of land situate in said county, and particularly described in the petition.The petition was in the ordinary form and the answer was a plea of the statute of limitations.The trial was before the court, without a jury, and resulted in findings of facts and a judgment for the defendants, from which the plaintiff duly appealed to this court.

The facts of the case, with the exception as to the question of adverse possession, are undisputed, and are as follows:

The land in controversy is the south 32 acres of the N. E. 1/4 of section 33, township 27, range 10.The whole of said northeast quarter, containing 160 acres, was patented by the United States to Joseph Eaton on September 1, 1856, who lived on the land from the time it was patented to him until he died in 1862, and his widow thereafter, until her death, which was but a year or so after his death.The heirs of Joseph Eaton were Eli Eaton, a son, Mrs. Hunley, a daughter, Jane Eaton, James Eaton, and William Eaton, Sr., plaintiff's immediate grantor.By a friendly partition of the land between those heirs, each received a strip, or lot thereof, containing 32 acres, lying parallel with each other.The first two strips on the north side. were taken by Eli Eaton and Mrs. Hunley, and Eli Eaton afterwards purchased Mrs. Hunley's strip.The next strip was taken by Jane Eaton, the next by James Eaton, and the south or last strip of 32 acres, being the land involved in this suit, was set off as the interest of William Eaton, Sr.

The defendants are the widow and heirs of James Eaton, and the plaintiff is a nephew of William Eaton, Sr., who is the son of the said Joseph Eaton, who testified as a witness in the case.

At the time of the division, which was made somewhere about the year 1870, plaintiff's grantor, William Eaton, Sr., was not in the state of Missouri.Since the year 1867he served in the army and lived in California and Nebraska and Western states, until about the 24th of December, 1908, when he returned to Stoddard county.Plaintiff offered to prove by said William Eaton, Sr., that when he left the statehe left all his interest in his father's estate with his brotherJames Eaton, the husband and father of defendants; that when he left the statehe left not only his interest in his father's land with his brother, James Eaton, but also left personal property of considerable value, for the purpose of paying taxes on his interest therein.Upon the objection of the defendants this was excluded upon the ground that it would not be binding upon the defendants, and for the further reason that James Eaton, the man with whom the property was said to have been left, is dead, which fact rendered witness incompetent to testify.This objection was sustained and exceptions were duly saved.Appellant also offered to prove that while William Eaton was in California he received letters from the respondentsThomas Eaton and Mellia Chapman, wanting him to make them a deed to the land, and that he also received a deed from Thomas Eaton to sign and execute conveying the land to the defendantThomas Eaton, but upon the objection of the defendants, that these facts were not binding upon them, the court refused to permit the testimony to be given, and exceptions were saved.

When William Eaton came back to Missouri, the defendantThomas Eaton was in possession of, the land but when the said William Eaton, Sr., requested him to move off the land, he did so, saying that he thought the land belonged to the said William Eaton.

The plaintiff, William Eaton, Jr., is a son of the aforesaid Eli Eaton, and since the return of the said William Eaton.Sr., to this state the latter has made his home with the appellant, and expects to as long as he lives.

Sam Scism testified for the appellant: That he is 71 years old, and has lived in the neighborhood of the laud since 1854.That he knew Joseph Eaton, and that he made his homestead on this 160 acres of land, and died between 1861 and 1864, while the witness was in the army.That he and the witness, William Eaton, Sr., were boys together, and the latter left here in the spring of '66 or '70.That James Eaton had charge of this 32-acre strip allotted to William Eaton, Sr., up until the time he died, and he cleared the biggest portion of it and finally built a house on it.That he talked with the said James Eaton on various occasions about his brother, the said William Eaton, Sr., and James Eaton always claimed that this 32-acre strip belonged to Bill, and did not claim any title to it.He said that Bill was coming back, but the witness told him that he never would, that the Indians had scalped him.That he never heard the defendantElizabeth Cates, who is the widow of the said James Eaton, having remarried since her first husband's death, say anything about whether she claimed the land or not.After the defendantThomas Eaton found out that old man William Eaton was in California he requested the witness to get the said William Eaton to make a deed to this land to the defendantThomas Eaton.The witness wrote to the Pension Office and finally located the said William Eaton in the Old Soldiers' Home near Los Angeles.

The appellant also offered to show by this witness that when the said William Eaton left the state that he left personal property with his brotherJames Eaton of the value of more than $100, for the purpose of having his brother James to take care of any taxes or indebtedness against his interest in the land; and that this 32-acre tract was known as the Bill Eaton tract of land, and that James Eaton talked with the witness often about said matter.This testimony was excluded and exceptions were saved.

J. B. Cooper testified for the appellant: That he was 58 years of age, and he has lived in Stoddard county 51 years, and knew this land before it was divided among the heirs.They always called that Bill's.James Eaton had charge of the land until the time of his death, cultivated what was cleared, built a house on it, and then cleared some more.He always said the land was his brotherBill's, and did not claim to own it.He never heard any of the respondents say that the land belonged to William Eaton, except the respondentTom Eaton.He heard James Eaton say several times that this was Bill's land.James Eaton built a house on the land, perhaps two years before he died, and he claimed at that time that he was building on Bill Eaton's land.He said that if Bill ever came back he could have the land, or could live with him, or have the house. he heard James Eaton say that William Eaton owned the title to this land.James Eaton built a frame house on the land, made out the boards and did the work himself.The land is not now under fence, but is outside.

W. J. Reed, testified for the plaintiff: That he is 62 years old, and knew Joseph Eaton before his death, and knew of the division of the 160 acres of land.They called the strip on the south side (was)Will Eaton's.He identified the William Eaton, Sr., plaintiff's grantor, as the William Eaton who was a son of Joseph Eaton.The witness knew the said William Eaton before the latter left the state.The witness never heard James Eaton say anything about the land, and all he knows is that it was talked about in the neighborhood that it was Will Eaton's land.

J. B. Skelton is 65 years of age, and has lived in Stoddard county since '59.He knew Joseph Eaton in his lifetime and knew the piece of land in controversy, he entered it from the government.It is about two miles from the witness' land.The land was divided after the death of Joseph Eaton, as previously stated.Bill's strip was on the south side.They took charge immediately after the division.James, as was the general understanding in the neighborhood, was cultivating William Eaton's strip.The witness has no recollection of ever having talked with James Eaton or his widow as to how they held the land.

E. B. Lincoln testified for the appellant: That he is 57 years of age, and was acquainted with James Eaton, and has known the farm he lived on for 40 years.James Baton told him how the land was divided.He said they divided it off in strips, and that Bill got the south part.James Eaton never did say to this witness that he claimed the land, but, in any conversations that he ever had about it, he always called it Bill's part of the land.The witness knew from his talk with James Eaton that the latter never did claim this land.He never heard the respondentElizabeth Cates say anything about the land after her husband's death.James Eaton told him that Bill had this 32 acres, and the witness advised James Eaton, since the house where James Eaton was then living was getting old and the land on Bill's strip, where James built the house, was good, well-timbered land, that he had better build on William Eaton's part, because William Eaton might never come back.

Samuel Seism was recalled, and stated that he had a talk with James Eaton when the latter was building the house on the William Eaton strip, and James Eaton, at that time, said that he would build a house on his brother's strip as somebody might come in and claim it, and he thought his brother would come back, and if be ever did he would have a house in which to live.

William Eaton(the plaintiff) testified in his own behalf: That the defendantMary E. Cates never claimed the land prior to the time the imposter came into the neighborhood who clainied to be William Eaton.Prior to that time she...