Larwell v. Stevens
| Decision Date | 01 October 1880 |
| Citation | 12 F. 559 |
| Parties | LARWELL v. STEVENS. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Missouri |
KREKEL D.J., (charging jury.)
The plaintiff, Larwell, brings this action to recover the possession of real estate in Kansas City, on which the defendant, Stevens, resides.To make out his case he presents sundry conveyances embracing the property in controversy.The objection raised on the introduction of these title papers having been overruled, it may be taken that they tend to show title in plaintiff, and, if the deeds are found to be genuine, vest the title in the plaintiff.To defeat the title of plaintiff, the defendant pleads the statute of limitations; that is, he says he has been 10 years at least in the actual, continuous, exclusive, and visible possession of the property sued for, and has thereby acquired such a right as will defeat the plaintiff's action.In the first place it is proper to call your attention to the fact that the defendant must establish the fact of the possession claimed.The possession must also be adverse-- that is, in hostility to the title of the real owner; for if the possession is held by mere indulgence and by consent of the owner, and the defendant understood this, and acquiesced, the possession is not adverse.A possession while so held cannot ripen into a title which will defeat the true owner of his right, because it is not adverse and hostile.As already stated, the possession, in order to avail the defendant, must be an exclusive possession; that is, he must not have held it within 10 years prior to the commencement of the suit, in conjunction with one who was the real owner of it.If the real owner and the claimant of the possession, within 10 years prior to the bringing of the suit, had joint possession of the premises sued for, such a possession will not avail this defendant.The possession follows the title, and, if the owner and others are in possession, the law considers the owner to have the possession.If you shall find from the evidence that this defendant was, at any time within 10 years prior to the bringing of this suit, in joint possession with his son, and that the son was the owner, and claimed title to the property in controversy to the knowledge of the defendant, Stevens, then the plea is not good.The plea of the statute of limitations for the possession must be exclusive, and not joint, with one having the title to the property of which t...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Horton v. Gentry
...another if he is also in possession with the adverse claimant; joint possession is not adverse. Fiorilla v. Jones, 259 S.W. 782; Larwell v. Stevens, 12 F. 559. (7) follows the record title to wild land. Record owner of wild land is presumed to have possession. Weir v. Lumber Co., 186 Mo. 38......
-
Hoelmer v. Heiskell
...by mere indulgence and consent or permission of the owner, the possession is not "adverse," however long or continuous it may be. Larwell v. Stevens, 12 F. 559; Kelsey v. City Shrewsbury, 335 Mo. 79, 71 S.W.2d 730; Riebold v. Smith, 150 S.W.2d 599. (6) It has been definitely held that the p......
-
Tarpey v. Sharp
... ... uncultivated and unimproved lands, and the court in that case ... held that no damages could be recovered. In Darwell v ... Stevens, 12 F. 559, the district judge declares the ... damages in such case consists of the value of the property by ... way of rents during the time the ... ...
-
Hill v. McGinnis
...owner or others, falls very far short of that kind of adverse possession which deprives the true owner of his title." See, also, Larwell v. Stevens, 12 F. 559. Huffman Hall, 102 Cal. 26, 36 P. 417, a case in principle the same as the one at bar, holds that, when land has been inclosed by a ......