Hickman v. Link
Decision Date | 22 May 1893 |
Parties | HICKMAN v. LINK et al. |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
2. In ejectment the crucial question was whether a certain purchaser of the premises in dispute had abandoned the same. In one instruction all the acts of such purchaser in relinquishing the property, as shown in the evidence, were recited, and the jury were told that they did not constitute abandonment unless they were done with intent to surrender the property, and the same idea was contained in another instruction. In two others an abandonment is predicated on some of such acts, without reference to his intention. In another instruction the jury were told that one of such acts did not tend to show abandonment, but might be considered, with other evidence, in passing on the issue. Held, that the instructions were so confusing as to compel reversal.
Appeal from circuit court, St. Louis county; W. W. Edwards, Judge.
Action of ejectment by Joshua Hickman against Mary I. Link and Martin Link. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiff appeals. Reversed.
For report of decision on prior appeal, see 10 S. W. Rep. 600.
John W. Booth and Thos. B. Crews, for appellant. A. McElhinney, Phillips & Stewart, and Chas. H. Anderson, for respondents.
This is an action in ejectment, in which the defendants had a verdict and judgment in the trial court, and the plaintiff appeals. The case has been here before, and is reported in 97 Mo. 482, 10 S. W. Rep. 600. On the first trial the verdict and judgment were for the plaintiff, and the defendants appealed. This judgment was reversed, and the cause remanded for new trial. On the second trial some new evidence was introduced, cumulative in its character, and in no way changing the complexion of the issues between the parties. It is therefore unnecessary to restate the case. The law of the case was maturely considered, settled, and clearly stated in the opinion of the court, rendered by Black, J., and will not be again discussed. Two brief extracts from that opinion will show precisely the issues of fact that were to be submitted to the jury on retrial. The plaintiff held title by deed to the land. There were two defenses: First, title by adverse possession; second, that plaintiff held his paper title in trust for the real defendant. After an exhaustive consideration of the law governing the first defense, the learned judge concludes by saying: "It therefore follows that, if Goodwin failed or refused to pay the notes which he gave in part payment for his purchase of the 245 acres, and abandoned the possession thereof, and Ann McCourtney, or she and the heirs of Martin McCourtney, for a period of ten years had actual possession of a part of the 480 arpents, and during that period claimed the whole, and exercised over the whole usual acts of ownership, then the defendant should prevail." After a like treatment of the law governing the second defense, he concludes by saying: It would seem that the issues of fact...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State ex rel. v. Day et al.
... ... 258. (b) The error was not cured by the giving of other instructions. 14 R.C.L. (Instructions, sec. 72), p. 812; 36 Cyc. 1602-1608; Hickman v. Griffen, 6 Mo. 37; Thomas et al. v. Babb et al., 45 Mo. 384; Mansur-Tebbetts Implement Co. v. Ritchie, 143 Mo. 587; Kuhlman v. Water, Light & sit Co., 307 Mo. 607; State ex rel. v. Ellison, 270 Mo. 645; James v. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co., 107 Mo. 480; Hickman v. Link, 116 Mo. 123; Stewart v. Dickson, 290 Mo. 516; Goodwin v. Eugas, 290 Mo. 673; Soomer v. Continental Portland Cement Co., 295 Mo. 519; Kibble v ... ...
-
Steffen v. S.W. Bell Tel. Co.
... ... 414, 202 S.W. 1066; Gardner v. Met. St. Ry. Co., 223 Mo. 389, 122 S.W. 1068; Stid v. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co., 236 Mo. 382, 139 S.W. 172; Hickman v. Link, 116 Mo. 123, 22 S.W. 472; James v. Mo. Pac. Railroad Co., 107 Mo. 480, 18 S.W. 31; Guenther v. St. Louis, I.M. & S. Ry. Co., 95 Mo. 286, 8 ... ...
-
Steffen v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co.
... ... 1066; ... Gardner v. Met. St. Ry. Co., 223 Mo. 389, 122 S.W ... 1068; Stid v. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co., 236 Mo. 382, 139 ... S.W. 172; Hickman v. Link, 116 Mo. 123, 22 S.W. 472; ... James v. Mo. Pac. Railroad Co., 107 Mo. 480, 18 S.W ... 31; Guenther v. St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co., ... ...
-
Baker v. Kansas City, Fort Scott and Memphis Railraod Company
... ... decided was not considered on the former appeal." ... [147 ... Mo. 150] In Hickman v. Link, 116 Mo. 123, 22 S.W ... 472, Judge Brace says: "On the second trial some new ... evidence was introduced, cumulative in its character, ... ...