La Grange Reorganized School Dist. No. R-VI v. Smith

Decision Date14 April 1958
Docket NumberR-V,No. 2,No. 46481,R,46481,2
Citation312 S.W.2d 135
PartiesLA GRANGE REORGANIZED SCHOOL DISTRICT NO.espondent, v. Noel SMITH, Appellant
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

J. Andy Zenge, Jr., Canton, for appellant.

Earl L. Veatch, Monticello, for respondent.

BARRETT, Commissioner.

LaGrange Reorganized School District No. R-VI, successor to the Walnut Grove School District, instituted this action against the appellant, Noel Smith, and the unknown heirs and devisees of Sewellyn Brown and others. Mr. Smith was the only party defendant to file an answer and contest the plaintiff's several claims. The school district's suit was in four counts: (1) to quiet the title to a plot of ground containing .48 of an acre; (2) ejectment and damages for wrongful withholding; (3) trespass to the plot of ground and the buildings and $200 damages for the trespass; and (4) an injunction against Smith's entering the premises and razing the buildings. The trial court found all issues for the plaintiff, found that Smith had no right, title or interest in the property, canceled his deed to the .48 of an acre, and quieted the title in the school district. The court enjoined Smith from asserting any claim to the property and awarded the district one dollar as damages. Upon his appeal Mr. Smith briefs and argues but two questions: first, that the court erroneously quieted the title to the land in the school district, and, second, erroneously held that the district owned the buildings on the land and hence could not award the district damages. Since these are the only points briefed and argued all other questions are deemed abandoned.

The Walnut Grove School and the plot of ground involved here is south of LaGrange on U. S. Highway 61. The .48 of an acre is described by the parties as a part of a five-acre tract in the SE 1/4 SE 1/4 sec. 26, T. 60, R. 6 W, in Lewis County. In August 1938, Mr. Smith purchased the described quarter section of land, which included by description the five-acre tract, from Marzel Sanderson. This record and that part of his abstract of the title dictated into the record shows that Sanderson's predecessors in title acquired the land by warranty deed in 1880 and from that date thenceforward the various owners had executed conveyances and deeds of trust which described the entire tract including the land in dispute in this action. The appellant Smith also proved that the entire tract had been assessed for tax purposes to him and his predecessors since 1880 and that he had paid the taxes for the years 1951 to 1956 inclusive and, perhaps, since 1938.

Admittedly the Walnut Grove School District has been in existence for more than seventy years and during that entire period there has been a school building and appurtenant outbuildings on the .48 acre plot. The plot is fenced on two sides and has been for years. In 1923 there was a district bond issue; the old building was razed and the present building constructed. Throughout the years, until the end of the 1953-1954 school year, classes were held in the school building and it was used for general school purposes. At the end of that term the pupils attending Walnut Grove School were transferred to LaGrange. Since 1954 an old upright piano, a stove, a few desks and some miscellaneous school property of little value have been stored in the school building, and the building has been padlocked and insured by the district.

In these circumstances the appellant Smith urges that there was no basis for the court's finding and decree that the school district had established title to the .48 acre plot by adverse possession. He insists, since the record fails to show that the district ever had a deed to the property, that it had no color of title and therefore could not establish title by adverse possession. In any event it is said that there was no proof that the district's possession was hostile or that it was claiming a fee simple title 'under claim of right,' hence its conduct and occupancy were in recognition of the appellant's title and permissive. In this connection it is argued that there was no manifest 'intent' throughout the period to hold or claim adversely to the rightful owner and that its use and occupancy for school purposes only was entirely consistent with ownership in another. And, finally, it is urged that the fact of record title in him and his predecessors, the assessment of the entire tract for tax purposes since 1880 and his payment of the taxes for five years or more repel all possible inferences of adverse possession.

There are on both sides a good many gaps and breaks in this record. There is no proof or stipulation that the equitable or any other title 'emanated from the government more than ten years' (V.A.M.S. Sec. 516.070), the parties appear to have assumed the fact, perhaps it is a permissible inference from the fact of the appellant's title as far back as 1880. Compare Miller v. Medley, Mo.Sup., 281 S.W.2d 797, 800-801. Title having emanated from the government, color of title is not necessarily an essential prerequisite to the establishment of title by adverse possession under this statute, the essential fact and element is 'lawful possession * * * for thirty consecutive years.' V.A.M.S. Sec. 516.070. There is no proof that the district ever had a deed or any other muniment of title to the .48 acre plot, but it does appear, unquestionably, that it had occupied and been in possession of the plot, prior to 1954, continuously for seventy years or more. Furthermore, there is no evidence whatever that the district's original occupancy and subsequent use of the plot were permissive. Feeler v. Reorganized School Dist. No. 4, Mo.Sup., 290 S.W.2d 102, 105. In these initial general circumstances, as emphasized in the easement cases, there being no conclusive proof of a license or of an easement, whether the use was prescriptive in character or permissive only is of necessity a fact to be inferred and determined from the circumstances. Gibson v. Sharp, Mo.App., 277 S.W.2d 672; Jacobs v. Brewster, 354 Mo. 729, 190 S.W.2d 894. The mere taking possession of land on the theory that passage of the requisite statutory period of time alone will ripen into title (Riebold v. Smith, Mo.App., 150 S.W.2d 599, 602), or the mere known occupancy of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 cases
  • Harris v. Consolidated School Dist. No. 8 C, Dunklin County
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • November 9, 1959
    ...acquire fee simple title by adverse possession, and not a mere easement. The facts in the recent case of La Grange Reorganized School District No. R-VI v. Smith, Mo., 312 S.W.2d 135, are so similar as to make the decision highly persuasive, if not controlling. There, as here, the record was......
  • Brewer v. United States, S 80-73C.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri
    • February 25, 1983
    ...to the United States. Brewer was under no obligation to assert her title shortly after its perfection. LaGrange Reorganized School District No. R-6 v. Smith, 312 S.W.2d 135 (1958). An equitable order reflecting such is therefore JUDGMENT In accordance with the Memorandum, Findings of Fact a......
  • Scott v. Hicks
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • January 8, 2019
    ...has been perfected." City of South Greenfield v. Cagle , 591 S.W.2d 156, 161 (Mo. App. 1979) (citing La Grange Reorganized Sch. Dist. No. R–VI v. Smith , 312 S.W.2d 135, 139 (Mo. 1958) ).Adverse ... means that the one making the use shall not recognize in those as against whom it is claimed......
  • Terry v. City of Independence
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • April 12, 1965
    ...a yard, but it was the character of dominion and use normally exercised and made of property for a street. La Grange Reorganized School Dist. No. R-VI v. Smith, Mo., 312 S.W.2d 135. 'The evidence disclosed that the whole passageway had been consistently used by the public for alley purposes......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • 6.1 Title by Adverse Possession
    • United States
    • Real Estate Practice Deskbook Chapter 6 Adverse Possession and Prescription
    • Invalid date
    ...is not lost by abandonment or failure to assert it after it has been perfected. La Grange Reorganized Sch. Dist. No. R-VI v. Smith, 312 S.W.2d 135, 139 (Mo. 1958). Therefore, the ten-year period does not need to be the ten years immediately preceding the suit. Moore v. Hoffman, 39 S.W.2d 33......
  • Section 1 Title by Adverse Possession
    • United States
    • The Missouri Bar Real Estate Fundamentals Deskbook Chapter 6 Adverse Possession and Prescription
    • Invalid date
    ...is not lost by abandonment or failure to assert it after it has been perfected. La Grange Reorganized Sch. Dist. No. R‑VI v. Smith, 312 S.W.2d 135, 139 (Mo. 1958). Therefore, the ten-year period does not need to be the ten years immediately preceding the suit. Moore v. Hoffman, 39 S.W.2d 33......
  • Section 11 When Awarded
    • United States
    • The Missouri Bar Damages Deskbook Chapter 1 Damages Generally
    • Invalid date
    ...McClellan v. Highland Sales & Inv. Co., 484 S.W.2d 239, 241 (Mo. 1972) (trespass) La Grange Reorganized Sch. Dist. No. R-VI v. Smith, 312 S.W.2d 135, 139 (Mo. 1958) (trespass) Clark v. Beverly Enters.-Mo., Inc., 872 S.W.2d 522 (Mo. App. W.D. 1994) Nominal damages are awarded as a recognitio......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT