Marshall v. City of Springfield

• Decision Date: 10 April 1920
• Docket Number: No. 20895.,20895.
• Citation: 221 S.W. 17
• Parties: MARSHALL v. CITY OF SPRINGFIELD.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

221 S.W. 17

MARSHALL v. CITY OF SPRINGFIELD.

No. 20895.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.

April 10, 1920.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Greene County; Guy D. Kirby, Judge.

Action by Mrs. Mary Marshall against the City of Springfield. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

McLain Jones, of Springfield, for appellant.

RAGLAND, C.

This is an action to quiet title under section 2535, R. S. 1909, to a strip of ground in the city of Springfield. The petition is in the usual form. The answer admits that the defendant claims an interest in the land adverse to that claimed by plaintiff, hut' denies the other allegations.

One William A. Knott is the common source of title. On November 19, 1887, he owned a rectangular piece of ground bounded on the east by Jefferson street and on the south by Phelps avenue. Its frontage (north and south) on Jefferson street was about 340 feet, and it extended back west along Phelps avenue approximately 222 feet. On the date named he conveyed to the defendant, the city of Springfield, a strip 20 feet wide, running across the tract just described from the north to the south and 120 feet west of its eastern boundary on Jefferson street. The deed recited that the land was conveyed "for use and purpose of a public alley." On January 0, 1888, the city, by ordinance duly enacted, accepted the grant and ordained that the same be established as "a public alley of said city."

After the conveyance of the strip of ground for use as a public alley, Knott conveyed to the Scott Investment Company, and it to one Davis, and he to the plaintiff, what was approximately the north half of the tract first described. Each of the deeds effecting these last three conveyances, as a part of the description of the land conveyed, contained this clause "except a strip 20 feet wide running through the same from north to south heretofore conveyed by said grantors to the city of Springfield for a public alley." Davis conveyed to plaintiff June 30, 1894, and she immediately went into possession. The parcel of ground, through which the strip deeded for an alley extended, lay in what was then, and is now, known as the wholesale district. The part conveyed to plaintiff had a small house on it and was fenced. After a time the house was removed or destroyed. Notwithstanding, she continued to rent the ground; it was in cultivation for a while, but later it was used as a woodyard. The alley was never opened. The strip conveyed for that purpose was inclosed with plaintiff's premises, and in connection with them was occupied by her from 1894 to the time of the trial in 1917. During that whole period the entire tract, including the alley, was assessed in her name by the city officials, and she paid taxes thereon to the city. She also paid a special tax bill, issued against her by the city in favor of the contractor who constructed a sidewalk along the north side of her property. In this tax bill she paid at the rate of 32 cents per foot for the entire distance that the tract, including the 20-foot strip, extended along Phelps avenue.

The cause was tried without a jury. At the conclusion of all the evidence, at defendant's request, the court declared as a matter of law that under the evidence plaintiff was not entitled to recover. The court adjudged the defendant to be the owner of the premises for the purposes and uses of a public alley, and the plaintiff to have no right, title, or interest therein, except to use the same as a public alley. Plaintiff appeals.

There is no dispute as...