Marshall v. Hill

Decision Date26 November 1912
Citation151 S.W. 131,246 Mo. 1
PartiesMARSHALL et al. v. HILL et al.
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

against Norman J. Hill and others. From judgment for plaintiffs, defendants appeal. Modified and affirmed.

The following is the opinion in Division No. 1:

Statement.

BROWN, C. In February, 1905, the defendant Norman N. Hill filed his petition in the St. Francois circuit court, returnable at the next May term thereof, in words and figures as follows:

                "Norman N. Hill, Plaintiff, v. Charles R
                    Marshall; Leander J. Marshall, John
                    Marshall, and the Unknown Heirs
                    Grantees, and Devisees of John Marshall
                    Della Lashley and the Unknown
                    Heirs, Grantees, and Devisees of Austin
                    Marshall, Deceased; the Unknown
                    Heirs, Grantees, and Devisees of Stanhope
                    Marshall, Deceased; the Unknown
                    Heirs, Grantees, and Devisees of James
                    Marshall, Deceased; Adeline Boggs and
                    the Unknown Heirs, Grantees and Devisees
                    of Adeline Boggs; and the Unknown
                    Heirs, Grantees and Devisees of
                    Sarah Marshall, Deceased, Defendants
                

"Plaintiff states that he claims to own and does own, in fee simple, the following described lands situate in the county of St. Francois, in the state of Missouri, to wit: All of the southeast quarter of the southeast quarter of section No. 1, township 36 N., range four east, containing about 40 acres. He further states that he is informed and believes that the above-named defendants claimed to have and own an interest in said lands. Plaintiff further states that defendants are nonresident of the state of Missouri and cannot be served with process in said state in the manner prescribed in article 4, chapter 8, Revised Statutes of Missouri, 1899.

"Plaintiff states that he verily believes there are persons, as hereinafter set forth, who are interested in, or who claim to be interested in, the subject-matter of this petition as heirs, grantees, and devisees of the parties named in this petition, and whose names he cannot insert, because unknown to him. He further states that Adeline Boggs, formerly Adeline Marshall, and John Marshall are children and heirs of Sarah Marshall, deceased, aforesaid; that he has no definite knowledge as to whether the aforesaid Adeline Boggs and John Marshall are still living, and hence their unknown heirs, grantees, and devisees are made parties to this action. He further states that James Marshall, deceased, Austin Marshall, deceased, and Stanhope Marshall, deceased, are also children and heirs of the aforesaid Sarah Marshall, who died more than 20 years ago; that the said unknown heirs, grantees, and devisees of Sarah Marshall, and the unknown heirs, grantees, and devisees of Adeline Boggs, John Marshall, James Marshall, Austin Marshall, and Stanhope Marshall, claim title to the aforesaid premises, as plaintiff is informed and believes, by and through the aforesaid Sarah Marshall as the common source of title, the exact nature of which claim this petitioner is unable to state.

"Plaintiff therefore prays the court to determine the estate, title, and interest in said real estate of the parties herein respectively, and to define by its judgment or decree the title, estate, and interest of the parties severally in and to such real estate.

"Norman N. Hill, being duly sworn, upon his oath states that the matters and things contained in the foregoing petition are true to the best of his knowledge and belief, and that he verily believes there are persons, as described in said petition, claiming to own an interest in the lands described in said petition, whose names he cannot insert, because unknown to him, and their...

To continue reading

Request your trial
33 cases
  • Gee v. Bullock, 38026.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 8 Septiembre 1942
    ... ... Chilton v. Cady, 250 S.W. 403; Marshall v. Hill, 246 Mo. 1. (9) The judgment in the case of Gee v. Bullock et al., pleaded and relied upon by defendants, does not operate as an estoppel in ... ...
  • Rains v. Moulder, 32628.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 4 Enero 1936
    ... ... 54; Johnson v. Adams, 7 S.W. (2d) 1010; Capen v. Garrison, 193 Mo. 335, 92 S.W. 368, 5 L.R.A. (N.S.) 838; Sec. 862, R.S. 1929; Marshal v. Hill, 246 Mo. 25, 151 S.W. 131; Burrus v. Cook, 215 Mo. 506, 114 S.W. 1065; Hoester v. Sammelman, 101 Mo. 624, 14 S.W. 728; Bank v. Bank, 107 Mo. 133, 17 ... ...
  • Lossing v. Shull, 38498.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 6 Julio 1943
    ... ... Gibson v. Chouteau, 13 Wall. 92; Smith v. McCorkle, 105 Mo. 135; Marshall v. Hill, 246 Mo. 1; Stonum v. Davis, 152 S.W. (2d) 1067; 22 C.J., sec. 1598, p. 1198. (5) A deed to constitute color of title must sufficiently ... ...
  • Stonum v. Davis
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 3 Abril 1941
    ... ... Bagnell v. Broderick, 13 Pet. 242, 10 L. Ed. 449; Irvine v. Marshall, 20 Howe, 558, 15 L. Ed. 994; Fenn v. Holme, 21 Howe, 481, 16 L. Ed. 198; United States v. Schurz, 102 U.S. 167, 26 L. Ed. 378; Wright v. Roseberry, ... 329; Miller v. Dunn, 62 Mo. 216; Hammond v. Johnson, 93 Mo. 198; Cummins v. Powell, 97 Mo. 524; Smith v. McCorkle, 105 Mo. 135; Marshall v. Hill, 246 Mo. 23; General American Life Ins. Co. v. Dunklin County, 96 S.W. (2d) 380; Hamilton v. Badgett, 293 Mo. 324; Tegerman v. LeMarchel, 129 Fed ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT