Hewitt v. Doherty
Decision Date | 05 April 1887 |
Citation | 25 Mo.App. 326 |
Parties | JOHN HEWITT, Appellant, v. GEORGE DOHERTY ET AL., Respondents. |
Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
APPEAL from the St. Louis County Circuit Court, W. W. EDWARDS Judge.
Reversed and remanded.
MUENCH & CLINE and J. W. MCELHINNEY, for the appellant.
HENRY BOEMLER, for the respondents.
This was an action of forcible entry and detainer. The trial in the circuit court, before a jury, resulted in a verdict and judgment for the defendant.
The controversy relates to the possession of eighteen or twenty acres of agricultural land. The evidence showed, without conflict, that, in October, 1884, the plaintiff took possession of this land under a lease from the owner; that he plowed it and sowed it in wheat; that in the spring he plowed up the wheat and planted it in corn, and also planted potatoes, and did what was necessary to the meadow, etc., and that in May, 1885, the defendant, Doherty, instigated by the defendant, Annie Beine, entered upon the land, took forcible possession of it, and carried away a quantity of hay and potatoes which the defendant had growing upon it. There was not only no evidence that the plaintiff's possession of the land was interrupted by any one from October to May, but the evidence tended to show that the defendant, Annie Beine under whom the other defendant claimed, had acquiesced in the same. There was, therefore, no question in the case of a scrambling or interrupted possession. The uncontradicted evidence showed that the plaintiff, prior to the forcible interruption of his possession by the defendant, Doherty held the possession of the acres in dispute by all the usual symbols of open, visible, public, and notorious possession, by which any farmer holds the possession of his cultivated lands.
I. Such being the essential facts, the trial court plainly committed error in the instruction given to the jury of its own motion, in advising them as to the law relating to a " scrambling possession." The evidence presented no hypothesis for such an instruction, and the giving of it was plainly prejudicial error against the plaintiff.
II. The verdict was rendered in disregard of the uncontradicted evidence in the case. The statute giving the action of forcible entry and detainer is a statute of peace. Its object is to prevent opposing claimants for the possession of land from taking the law into their own hands and...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Dawson v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co.
...Ry. Co., 118 Mo.App. 611; Gage v. Trawick, 94 Mo.App. 307; Friesz v. Fallon, 24 Mo.App. 439; Holt v. Morton, 53 Mo.App. 187; Hewitt v. Doherty, 25 Mo.App. 326; Lionberger Pohlman, 16 Mo.App. 392; Walton v. Kansas City, Ft. S. & M. Ry., 49 Mo.App. 620; Empey v. Grand Ave .Cable Co., 45 Mo.Ap......
-
Heether v. City of Huntsville
...court to reverse the judgment of the trial court is clear. Garrett v. Grennwell, 92 Mo. 120; Whitset v. Lanson, 79 Mo. 258; Heweet v. Daughter, 25 Mo.App. 326; Long v. Mason, 107 Mo. 334; Spohn Railroad, 87 Mo. 74; Brown v. Kansas City, ___ Mo. ___; Powell v. Railroad, 76 Mo. 80; Ockley v. ......
-
Gannon v. Laclede Gas Light Company
... ... suspicion, the appellate court would direct the proper ... judgment to be entered by the trial court. In Hewitt v ... Doherty , 25 Mo.App. 326, it was held that a verdict for ... one party where the conceded facts show that the adverse ... party is entitled ... ...
-
Lock v. Chicago, Burlington And Quincy Railroad Company
...Ry. Co., 118 Mo.App. 611; Gage v. Trawick, 94 Mo.App. 307; Friesz v. Fallon, 24 Mo.App. 439; Holt v. Morton, 53 Mo.App. 187; Hewitt v. Doherty, 25 Mo.App. 326; Lionberger Pohlman, 16 Mo.App. 392; Walton v. Ry. Co., 49 Mo.App. 620; Empey v. Grand Ave. Cable Co., 45 Mo.App. 422. (2) Instructi......