Kansas City & A. Ry. Co. v. Smith
| Decision Date | 21 May 1900 |
| Citation | 156 Mo. 608,57 S.W. 555 |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
| Parties | KANSAS CITY & A. RY. CO. v. SMITH et al. |
1. Respondents claimed title to certain property under a purchase at a tax sale. Appellants contested the validity of this sale on the ground that the suit for taxes was not brought against the record owners of the land, as required by statute. Respondents relied on a chain of title beginning with a patent from the United States in 1845, and showing regular conveyances to the date of the tax sale. Appellants claimed under a deed, the grantor in which appears to have been a squatter on the land, without color of title. Held that, in the absence of a showing of title by adverse possession in appellants' grantor, appellants were not the record owners of the property at the time of the tax suit, and it was not necessary that they should be parties to that suit.
2. Where in a deed there is an obvious error in the initials of the grantee in one part of the instrument, but they are correctly given in several other parts, a court of law will reject the erroneous initials, and construe the deed according to the manifest intention of the parties.
3. Declarations made by appellants' grantees that they were in possession under leases from D. are not admissible to prove adverse possession in them; for such declarations are simply hearsay, and, being in favor of the declarant, are not within the exception permitting declarations against the interest of the declarant to be received.
4. Where the appellants were contesting the right of respondents to certain money awarded as damages in a proceeding by plaintiffs to condemn a right of way over the land in question, it was proper for the court below to require them to interplead, and, as plaintiffs, assume the burden of establishing their ownership of the land condemned.
Appeal from circuit court, Clay county; E. J. Broaddus, Judge.
Action by the Kansas City & Atlantic Railway Company to condemn a right of way over property adversely claimed by Smith and Russell and Felix View and others. From an order directing the jury to find that Smith and Russell are the owners of the property, and entitled to the damages awarded in the condemnation proceedings, Felix View and others appeal. Affirmed.
On the 15th day of June, 1896, the plaintiff filed in the Clay circuit court its petition against Henry Smith and C. M. Russell, the respondents herein, and against Felix View et al., the appellants herein, to condemn a right of way through the 2½ acres of S. E. ¼ of N. E. ¼ of section 23, township 50, range 33. In due course of procedure the damages were assessed at $2,934. The respondents, Smith and Russell, bought this land in 1881, and at the date of the institution of the condemnation proceeding they were in the actual and exclusive possession of the land. In order to secure distribution of the money, Smith and Russell filed a motion setting up their purchase of the land in 1881, and their actual and exclusive possession, and asking that their co-defendants set up their claims, if they asserted any, to the money. The appellants filed their claim in obedience to an order of court made pursuant to respondents' motion. On the 1st day of November, 1897, respondents filed their amended answer to appellants' claim, and this cause was tried upon the issue thus joined. At the conclusion of the evidence the court instructed the jury to find for respondents, Smith and Russell. The claim of respondents is based upon a record title, of which the following is a skeleton abstract:
===================================================================================================================================================
RESPONDENTS' RECORD TITLE
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grantor. | Grantee. | Date. | Filed. | Cons. | Bk. | Pg. | Remarks
--------------------------|----------------------|-----------------|----------------|----------|------|------|-------------------------------------
| | | | | | | Patent to E. ½ of N
1. United States | Timothy Joyce. | Oct. 1, 1845. | | | | | E. ¼ S. 23, T. 50, R
| | | | | | | 33
--------------------------|----------------------|-----------------|----------------|----------|------|------|-------------------------------------
| | | | | | | War. deed to same
2. Timothy Joyce | T. A. Thompson. | Feb. 3, 1879. | Mch. 12, 1879. | $ 250 00 | 47 | 416 | land.
--------------------------|----------------------|-----------------|----------------|----------|------|------|-------------------------------------
3. T. A. Thompson | | | | | | |
and Chas. M. | | | | | | |
Thompson, her | | | | | | | War. deed. W. ½ of S.
husband; Carrie | Isaac R. Mendenhall. | April 17, 1879. | June 16, 1879. | 1,500 00 | 47 | 586 | E. ¼ of N. E. ¼, S.
B. Thompson and | | | | | | | 23, T. 50, R. 33.
Chas. F. Thompson, | | | | | | |
her husband. | | | | | | |
--------------------------|----------------------|-----------------|----------------|----------|------|------|-------------------------------------
4. Thursa A. | | | | | | |
Thompson and | | | | | | |
Chas. M. Thompson, | | | | | | | War. deed, S. E. ¼ of
her husband; | Sarah A. Roseberry. | May 9, 1879. | June 16, 1881. | 2,000 00 | 53 | 221 | N. E. ¼, S. 23, T. 50,
Carrie B. Thompson | | | | | | | R. 33, except 10 acres
and Chas. F. | | | | | | | in S. W. corner.
Thompson, her | | | | | | |
husb'd. | | | | | | |
--------------------------|----------------------|-----------------|----------------|----------|------|------|-------------------------------------
| | | | | | | War. deed, conveys
5. Same as No. 4. | Sarah A. Roseberry. | " | " | 1,000 00 | 53 | 222 | the ten acres excepted
| | | | | | | in last deed.
--------------------------|----------------------|-----------------|----------------|----------|------|------|-------------------------------------
| | | | | | | S. E. ¼ of N. E. ¼, S.
| | | | | | | 23, T. 50 R. 33.
| | | | | | | Defendants in Judgment;
| | | | | | | Charles F.
| | | | | | | Thompson, Timothy
6. James R. Timberlake, | Henry Smith. | | | | | | Joyce, Sarah A.
sheriff. | | March 8, '81. | March 15, '81. | 50 00 | 52 | 6 | Roseberry, John S.
| | | | | | | Roseberry, Isaac P.
| | | | | | | Mendenhall, Thursa
| | | | | | | A. Thompson,
| | | | | | | Charles M. Thompson,
| | | | | | | William M. Burris.
| | | | | | | Tax sale.
--------------------------|----------------------|-----------------|----------------|----------|------|------|-------------------------------------
| | | | | | | War. deed, ½ undiv'd
7. Henry Smith. | C. M. Russell. | March 9, '81. | July 20, '81. | 338 00 | 53 | 316 | in W. ½ of S. E. ¼
...To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rains v. Moulder, 32628.
...against the condemnation award, the court was without jurisdiction; Hilton v. St. Louis, 99 Mo. 207, 12 S.W. 657; K.C. & Atl. Ry. Co. v. View, 156 Mo. 618, 57 S.W. 555; Ross v. Gates, 183 Mo. 347, 81 S.W. 1107; Murphy v. Barron, 286 Mo. 390, 228 S.W. 497; Cassville School Dist. v. McArtor, ......
-
Rains v. Moulder
... ... against the pledgor." [New York Life Ins. Co. v. Kansas ... City Bank, 121 Mo.App. 479, 489, 97 S.W. 195, 196.] ... We have ... held ... ...
-
Murphy v. Barron
...of the "party entitled" to the fund. It had power to require the contending claimants to interplead. It has been so held. [K. C. & A. Ry. v. View, 156 Mo. 608; Hilton v. St. Louis, 99 Mo. 199, 207, 12 S.W. The parties made no objection to the informal manner in which they were brought, or c......
-
State ex rel. McCaskill v. Hall
...v. Grimm, 314 Mo. 242, 284 S.W. 490; Railroad Company v. Story, 96 Mo. 611; Union Depot Co. v. Frederick, 117 Mo. 138; Kansas City & A. Ry. Co. v. View, 156 Mo. 608; Butler Railroad v. Barron, 173 Mo.App. 365; Murphy v. Barron, 286 Mo. 390; Cassville School District v. McArtor, 286 S.W. 729......