Himmelberger-Harrison Lumber Co. v. Deneen.
|220 Mo. 184,119 S.W. 365
|HIMMELBERGER-HARRISON LUMBER CO. v. DENEEN.
|30 March 1909
|United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Circuit Court, Stoddard County; J. L. Fort, Judge.
Action by the Himmelberger-Harrison Lumber Company against J. W. Deneen. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
This action was commenced in the circuit court of Stoddard county on the 13th day of January, 1905, under the provisions of section 650, Rev. St. 1899 (Ann. St. 1906, p. 667). It was sought by this action to ascertain and determine the title between the respective parties to this suit to 320 acres of land, described as follows: The south half of section 23, township 27, range 12 east, situate in Stoddard county, Mo.
The petition alleged that the plaintiff was the owner of the land in controversy, and further alleged that the plaintiff and its grantors had been in the actual, open, notorious, hostile, continuous adverse possession under a bona fide claim of title for more than 10 years prior to the institution of this suit. The defendant answered, admitting that he made claim to the land, and asserted ownership in fee therein, and denied all other allegations in the petition. Upon the trial in the court below it was agreed that J. W. Deneen, the defendant in this cause, was the record owner of this land on March 5, 1886, and that the deed recorded in the recorder's office of Stoddard county, Mo., recited his residence or location as in Gentry county, Mo.
Appellant in this cause claims title to the land in controversy upon three grounds: First, upon a sheriff's deed under tax judgment and special execution, dated September 16, 1891, and recorded in the land records of Stoddard county, Mo., in Record Book 2, p. 18, and by mesne conveyances from the purchaser under the tax deed to the plaintiff in this cause; second, adverse possession for 10 years by the appellant; third, laches and estoppel on the part of the respondent.
When the plaintiff offered in evidence the sheriff's deed under the tax judgment, the defendant interposed an objection to such deed for the following reasons: "Because the court had no jurisdiction to render judgment, and there was a summons sent out dated the 29th day of May, 1890, returnable to the second Monday in September, 1890, and the sheriff returned it on the 12th day of June following, which is 88 days before the return day of the writ." In support of this objection, the defendant was permitted, over the objection of the plaintiff, to offer the following testimony: (a) The original petition for back taxes filed February 7, 1890. (b) The summons that was issued by the clerk of the Stoddard county circuit court, directed to the sheriff of Gentry county, Mo., dated May 29, 1890, and made returnable to the second Monday in September, 1890, with the following indorsements thereon: And in the handwriting of the sheriff of Gentry county the following indorsement was made and written on said summons: "I cannot find anyone that ever knew this man in this county." (c) Next, an entry in the circuit court record of Stoddard county, Mo., made on Saturday, November 22, 1890, it being the 12th day of the September term, 1890, of said circuit court, as the same appears in Record Book N, p. 263. Said entry recites that: "It appearing to the satisfaction of the court that the defendant herein cannot be served with summons, it is ordered by the court that publication be made notifying the defendant that an action has been commenced against him," etc., using the appropriate and usual language used in making an order of publication in term time. (d) Next, the publication itself and the affidavit of the publisher showing the weeks in which the notice appeared in its paper, and the proof of...
To continue readingRequest your trial
- Himmelberger-Harrison Lumber Company v. McCabe
- Himmelberger-Harrison Lumber Co. v. McCabe.
Himmelberger-Harrison Lumber Co. v. Jones
...same as were presented in the two cases by this same plaintiff, one against McCabe and Sallee, 119 S. W. 357, the other against J. W. Deneen, 119 S. W. 365, in which cases the opinions and conclusions reached were announced at the present sitting of this court. We see no necessity for discu......
- Himmelberger-Harrison Lumber Company v. Deneen