Lock v. Bennartz, 55309
| Decision Date | 13 September 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 2,No. 55309,55309,2 |
| Parties | Howard LOCK and Angeline Lock, Respondents, v. Leo BENNARTZ and Sharon Bennartz, Appellants |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Lowell McCuskey, Linn, P. Pierre Dominique, Jefferson City, for respondents.
John L. Hearne, James L. Barry, Keyes & Hearne, Jefferson City, for appellants.
STOCKARD, Commissioner.
Defendants have appealed from a judgment quieting title as between the parties to certain land in Osage County, and enjoining the defendants from interfering with its use by plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs alleged that they were the owners of certain land, described in the petition by metes and bounds, and that defendants 'claim some interest in and to said real estate, the nature and character of which is unknown to plaintiffs and cannot be described herein except that said claim is adverse and prejudicial to these plaintiffs.' The prayer was that the court determine the 'title and interest of the parties, plaintiffs and defendants herein,' and decree that plaintiffs are the fee simple owners and that defendants have no right, title or interest in and to said real estate. Defendants' answer to the above allegation was as follows: 'Defendants deny each, every and all allegations contained in Count IV of plaintiff's petition.' By this answer, defendants not only denied that plaintiffs owned the land, but they also denied that they 'claim some interest in and to said real estate.'
The trial court announced that the case was being tried on Count I (injunctive relief), Count IV (quiet title with plaintiffs' claim being based on record title) and Count V (adverse possession), but the judgment shows no disposition of Count V. However, we shall assume that Count V was dismissed on the basis that since the title of the described land was decreed t be in plaintiffs pursuant to the claim asserted in Count IV (record title), there was no occasion to rule on Count V.
At the trial the evidence indicated that the land in dispute was a tract, somewhat triangular in shape, located between a graveled road which formerly was Highway 50 and the present Highway 50. Plaintiffs' claim of title was a deed dated May 26, 1947, from Herbert and Gertrude Porting. Although by their pleadings defendants denied any interest in the land, their evidence, admitted without objection, tended to establish a claim by reason of a deed from Charles M. and Louisa Lock and Henry J. and Hattie Lcok, dated April 8, 1932, and subsequent conveyances, the last of which was from Howard and Mary Branson to defendants, dated June 30, 1962. We shall consider, for purposes of this appeal, that the pleadings were amended to conform with defendants' evidence. Civil Rule 55.54, V.A.M.R.
The descriptions of the lands...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Porter v. Schaffer
...deed was subject to the reservation, and would cloud the title to the whole 30 acres." Id. at 665, 57 A.2d 279. See also Lock v. Bennartz, 470 S.W.2d 801, 802 (1971)(holding that a plaintiff's attempt to quiet title failed because the plaintiff could not furnish "competent evidence that the......
-
City of Gainesville v. Gilliland, s. 14382
...in the Kimzey deed. In these circumstances, who prevails? Ironically, the City and Gilliland rely on the same case, Lock v. Bennartz, 470 S.W.2d 801 (Mo.1971). The pleadings and evidence in Lock were remarkably similar to the pleadings and evidence as to Count II of Gilliland's third amende......
-
Galemore Motor Co., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
...the evidence. Rule 55.33(b) (formerly Rule 55.54); § 509.500; Harris v. Goggins, 374 S.W.2d 6, 12(4--6) (Mo banc 1963); Lock v. Bennartz, 470 S.W.2d 801, 802(1) (Mo.1971); Searcy v. Neal, 509 S.W.2d 755, 759--760(1, 2) (Mo.App.1974); Stoeppelman v. Hays-Fendler Const. Co., 437 S.W.2d 143, 1......
-
Moranz v. Schiller, 36098
...objection at trial, we shall consider on appeal that the pleadings were amended to conform with plaintiff's evidence. Lock v. Bennartz, 470 S.W.2d 801, 802(1) (Mo.1971). For plaintiff to avail himself of the provisions of Rule 55.33(b), VAMR, defendant must first have consented or railed to......