Jamison v. Wells
| Citation | 250 S.W. 63 |
| Decision Date | 06 April 1923 |
| Docket Number | No. 22543.,22543. |
| Parties | JAMISON v. WELLS et al. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Missouri |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Lincoln County; Ernest S. Gantt, Judge.'
Action by William D. Jamison against John Curt Wells and another. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded.
Creech & Penn, of Troy, for appellant.
D. E. Killam and R. L. Sutton, both of Troy, for respondents.
The petition is in two counts, one to quiet title, and one in ejectment. At the close of appellant's evidence the court directed a verdict against him, and entered judgment upon it. This appeal followed.
The land involved comprises lots 2, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, and 48 in the plat of the town of Falmouth in Lincoln county, and the parts of lots 17, 31, 32, 41, and 42, in the same plat, which lie north of the public road from Elsberry to Falmouth, formerly Westport, all in township 51, range 2 east. The plat of Westport, since renamed Falmouth, was recorded in 1836. It became a thriving steamboat landing, but its business and population disappeared after the substitution of railway transportation for steamboat traffic, and some parts of the lots at the northeastern corner of the village have been washed away or utilized for levee construction. At the point the river runs south 30° east. The lot lines and streets parallel or are perpendicular to the course of the river. Lot one is the northeast corner lot. The east tier of lots, that next the river, consists of lots 1 to 12, inclusive, from north to south, at the angle named. West of these, separated from them by an alley, 16½ feet wide, is the second tier, consisting of lots 13 to 24, from south to north. Then, separated from these last by a street 66 feet wide, is a third tier of lots, numbered 25 to 36, from north to south. West of these, and of another alley, is the fourth tier, numbered 37 to 48, from south to north. Two streets run east and west. They are 66 feet wide. Myrtle street lies between lots 4, 21, 28, and 45 on the north and lots 5, 20, 29, and 44 on the south. The other east and west street is south of Myrtle, and separated from it by the width of four lots. The lots are 100 feet wide and 200 feet long. Appellant claims nothing south of the Elsberry road, and only part of the lots north of it. Of the lots north of the road he makes no claim to lots 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, and 24. Appellant does not contend he has record title, but insists he has color of title, and has acquired title by adverse possession. He offered a collector's deed, dated December 18, 1877, which purports to convey to him all the lots here involved except 2 and 23, and offered a commissioner's deed, dated April 2, 1875, which purports to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Branner v. Klaber
...where the acts of ownership were very slight. However, in the latter case, where plaintiff claimed under a void tax deed, on first appeal (250 S.W. 63), this court held much weaker evidence of adverse possession than that in this case was sufficient for the jury to make a finding of ten yea......
-
Horton v. Gentry
... ... possession is for the jury, and its finding and the judgment ... of the trial court is conclusive and biding upon this court ... Jamison v. Wells, 7 S.W.2d 347; Cullen v ... Johnson, 29 S.W.2d l.c. 45; Romine v. Haag, 178 ... S.W. 147; 2 C.J.S., sec. 228, p. 858; Newbrough v. Moore, ... ...
-
Smith v. Wallace
...potential facts, persuasive evidence of actual possession." [Jamison v. Wells (Mo.), 7 S.W.2d 347, and cases cited; see, also, Jamison v. Wells (Mo.), 250 S.W. 63; Branner v. Klaber, 330 Mo. 306, 49 S.W.2d 169, l. 180.] Moreover, plaintiff's deed from the county was at least sufficient to c......
-
Smith v. Wallace
...persuasive evidence of actual possession." [Jamison v. Wells (Mo.), 7 S.W. (2d) 347, and cases cited; see, also, Jamison v. Wells (Mo.), 250 S.W. 63; Branner v. Klaber, 330 Mo. 306, 49 S.W. (2d) 169, l.c. 180.] Moreover, plaintiff's deed from the county was at least sufficient to constitute......