Harris v. Turner

• Decision Date: 31 August 1870
• Citation: 46 Mo. 438
• Parties: JAMES HARRIS, Respondent, v. ASA TURNER AND JOHN L HOUCK, Appellants.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

46 Mo. 438

JAMES HARRIS, Respondent,

v.ASA TURNER AND JOHN L HOUCK, Appellants.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

August Term, 1870.

Appeal from Fourth District Court.

Carr & Easley, for appellants.

Burgess, for respondent.

BLISS, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an action of forcible entry and detainer, and the defenses, as embodied in various declarations of law, were all overruled by the court. First it was urged that the plaintiff's entry was wrongful, and hence he could not maintain the action. He went into a field near his cabin, and, without leave, plowed, and planted about eight acres in corn and potatoes. No right to thus enter appears, and the question is presented whether a person thus in possession can maintain this action against one who forcibly dispossessed him, even though the dispossessor had a right to the possession.

The construction of the statute in this regard has been uniform. The property rights of the parties can not be decided in this form of action. If the plaintiff was in peaceable possession, whether rightfully or wrongfully, the defendants had no right to forcibly dispossess him. If their statements in regard to his entry are correct, they could in a few days have lawfully turned him out, and a loss of his crops would have been the penalty for his wrongful entry. To permit men to redress their own wrongs by forcibly turning out those who had wrongfully obtained possession of lands, would defeat one of the objects of the statute. It is an act of peace, and esigned to prevent its breach, and the courts of the State have ever given it a construction that should remove all excuse or temptation for men to take the law into their own hands. If, therefore, the plaintiff had entered upon the land and planted a crop, and was in peaceable possession of the same, no superior right of defendants could justify them in ousting him by force. (King's Adm'r v. St. Louis Gaslight Co., 34 Mo. 343; Krevet v. Meyer, 24 Mo. 110; Beeler v. Cardwell, 39 Mo. 72.)

But the court committed an error in rendering a judgment for the whole quarter-section in connection with its refusal to give the following declaration of law asked by defendants, to-wit: “If the court, sitting as a jury, find that the plaintiff has failed to show any authority to enter upon said premises, or any color of title thereto, then his possession is confined to that portion of the field in his actual occupancy; and, should the court find for the plaintiff, he is...