Kugel v. Knuckles

• Decision Date: 22 July 1902
• Parties: KUGEL et al. v. KNUCKLES et al.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

69 S.W. 595

95 Mo. A. 670

KUGEL et al. v. KNUCKLES et al.

Court of Appeals at St. Louis, Missouri.

July 22, 1902.

EJECTMENT — IMPROVEMENTS — NOTICE OF ADVERSE TITLE — ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE.

1. In a suit by defendant in ejectment to recover the value of improvements (under Rev. St. 1899, § 3072) it appeared that the claimant had ample means of knowledge of the adverse title before making the improvements for which he claimed compensation. Held, that the trial court was warranted in finding actual notice of the adverse title in the circumstances described in the opinion.

2. In a suit under the section above mentioned the claimant cannot be defeated by mere constructive notice of the adverse title.

3. The origin of the statute cited above is indicated, and its essentials declared to be good faith and innocence on the part of the claimant for compensation.

4. Possession of the means of knowledge of a particular fact justifies a finding of actual knowledge thereof.

(Syllabus by the Judge.)

Appeal from circuit court, St. Francois county; Jas. D. Fox, Judge.

Action by Rachel Kugel and others against William C. Knuckles and others. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.

Wm. Carter and Huff & Sleeth, for appellants. B. H. Marbury and M. R. Smith, for respondents.

BARCLAY, J.

This is a statutory action to obtain compensation for improvements, as permitted by the Missouri statute regulating actions for the recovery of possession of real property. Rev. St. 1899, § 3072. The present plaintiffs were defendants in an action of ejectment in the circuit court of St. Francois county, Mo., wherein the present defendants prevailed, and at the November term, 1899, had judgment against plaintiffs for the recovery of possession of two certain lots of land in the city of Farmington, together with the usual order of execution. Then the suit at bar was begun at the same term of court to recover of defendants (the former plaintiffs) the value of certain improvements made by plaintiffs, consisting of a sidewalk, some fencing, a house, and a cistern, the total value of which is about $1,500. The pleadings need not be recited. The substance of the case is this: Plaintiff Mrs. Kugel acquired an interest in the land in question through a sale for taxes in May, 1890, and obtained a sheriff's deed purporting to convey to her the estates therein of John W. Knuckles and George J. Cundiff, defendants in the tax case. The land was then vacant. Afterwards the same plaintiff obtained a warranty deed from John W. Knuckles and wife February 23, 1892. Mr. Kugel and his wife, the grantee in the above conveyances, assumed possession of the land in 1890, after the first deed above mentioned. Not long afterwards they made the improvements in the order in which they are mentioned above. Having a wish to borrow some money on the land as security in order to build the house, Mr. Kugel obtained an abstract of title March 12, 1891, which disclosed that the land had been devised by Tabitha Green to John W. Knuckles for life, with remainder to the heirs of his body, in default whereof the title should vest in George J. Cundiff and his heirs. The will was not recorded in the recorder's office of St. Francois county until July 3, 1891, but it had been probated November 23, 1881. Plaintiffs, however, disclaim knowledge, or at least understanding, of the meaning of the report on the title prepared by the attorney who made the investigation of the records on their behalf. It does not appear necessary to recite the testimony at large. It seems to us to warrant the inferences which the learned trial judge drew from it, and to which we shall refer again. The case was tried without a jury. At the close of the evidence plaintiffs asked, and the court refused, a binding declaration of law for a finding in favor of plaintiffs for the value of the improvements. The court, however, then approved the following declaration requested by plaintiffs: "(1) The court declares the law to be that, if the plaintiffs purchased the lots in controversy in good faith, believing that they acquired good title thereto, and put the improvements on said lots prior to their having received any notice of the claim of these defendants, then and in that event the plaintiffs are entitled to recover the value of the improvements so put upon said lots by them, and the finding and judgment of the court will be for the plaintiffs. The court further declares the law to be that the record introduced in evidence in this cause did not impart such notice to ...