Kane v. Kansas City, F. S. & M. Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 31 October 1892
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court
• Parties: KANE et al. v. KANSAS CITY, F. S. & M. RY. CO.

20 S.W. 532

112 Mo. 34

KANE et al. v. KANSAS CITY, F. S. & M. RY. CO.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.

October 31, 1892.

EJECTMENT — TITLE TO SUPPORT — "OWNERS" OF TITLE — STATUTES — RULES OF CONSTRUCTION.

1. In ejectment, plaintiffs claimed title under an administrator's sale of land for the payment of debts of a decedent; defendant claimed under prior condemnation proceedings against the heirs of the same decedent. Held, that the latter title should prevail.

2. Upon the death of a landowner, intestate, his heirs become the "owners" of his title, within the meaning of section 2734, Rev. St. 1889.

3. Laws must be construed so as to harmonize if possible; but where two interfere, that should be followed which is recommended by the most beneficial reasons.

4. The consequences of a proposed interpretation may be considered in determining probable intention in the enactment of the law.

5. Occasionally the letter of a statute must be narrowed to conform to its evident intent.

(Syllabus by the Judge.)

Appeal from circuit court, Greene county; W. D. HUBBARD, Judge.

Ejectment by Anna Kane and others against the Kansas City. Ft. Scott & Memphis Railway Company. Judgment for defendant. Plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.

Haseltine Bros. and B. R. Brewer, for appellants. Wallace Pratt and J. C. Cravens, for respondent.

BARCLAY, J.

This is an action of ejectment for a strip of land used by defendant for railroad purposes in Greene county. The judgment of the trial court was in favor of defendant. Plaintiffs appealed. The facts lie within a narrow compass and are all admitted.

The conflicting titles trace to Gabriel P. Shackelford as the common source. Plaintiffs are the widow and heirs of Michael Kane, deceased, who, in his lifetime, bought a piece of land (including that in dispute) at a sale by Shackelford's administrator to pay debts of that estate. This sale occurred in 1884, and was duly perfected by deed to Mr. Kane. Its regularity is not questioned. The order for the sale had been made by the probate court in 1879, but its execution was delayed by an appeal reported as Van Bibber v. Julian, (1884,) 81 Mo. 618. Defendant claims title under proceedings to condemn the strip in question for public use as part of defendant's railway. These proceedings were taken and concluded in 1881, in the circuit court of Greene county. All the heirs of Shackelford were by name made individually parties defendant therein, were duly notified, and substantial damages, assessed by the commissioners, were paid into court for them. No objection is urged to the formal sufficiency of the condemnation. Plaintiffs' contention is that the deed of the administrator, in 1884, conveyed to Mr. Kane "all the right, title, and interest which the deceased" [Shackelford] "had in such real estate at the time of his death," as declared in section 171, Rev. St. 1889, (same as section 172 of 1879,) notwithstanding the proceedings against the heirs of Mr. Shackelford in 1881. The effect of these proceedings constitutes the vital issue in this appeal. The statute regulating them contemplates that each known owner of land sought to be taken shall be made a party, and, among other specific directions on that point, declares that "it shall not be necessary to make any persons party defendant in respect to their ownership, unless they are either in actual possession of the premises to be affected, claiming title, or have a title to the premises appearing of record upon the proper records of the county." Rev. St. 1889, § 2734, (same as section 892 of 1879.) Upon the death of Mr. Shackelford intestate, his lands descended to his heirs, who became the legal owners thereof. The title was subject to a liability to respond, in certain circumstances, for the debts of the ancestor, but meanwhile it was vested in the heirs. As owners, they were the proper parties to the condemnation case by the terms of the statute. The administrator did not hold the legal title. Boynton v. Peterborough, etc., Co., (1849,) 4 Cush. 467.

As to the rights of creditors, or of the administrator of Mr. Shackelford, to reach the fund awarded as damages, or to interpose in the condemnation case for their protection, the facts before us do not require any expression of our opinion. The only question in hand is whether the legal title to the land was effectually reached by the proceedings against the Shackelford heirs. The privilege of creditors of the estate to resort to the land, and to subject the title of the heirs to debts of Shackelford, certainly does not bring them as near to ownership as is a creditor who has obtained...