Mathis v. Melton
| Citation | 293 Mo. 134,238 S.W. 806 |
| Decision Date | 18 March 1922 |
| Docket Number | No. 22536.,22536. |
| Parties | MATHIS et al. v. MELTON et al. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Missouri |
Action by Thomas M. Mathis and others against Ralph Melton and others. From a judgment quieting title to certain land, both parties appeal. Affirmed.
Land title suit under the provisions of section 1970, R. S. 1919. The land involved is described as:
"All of lots 13, 15 and 16 of the southwest quarter of section 31, township 26 north, range 8 east, in Butler county, Missouri."
The petition is in usual form, alleging that plaintiffs are the owners in fee simple of said property; that defendants made an adverse claim, and plaintiffs pray for an ascertainment and determination of the interests of the parties litigant, and that defendants be divested of their apparent interest and the title made to repose in plaintiffs. The defendants answered in groups, severally admitting their claim of title, denying the interest of plaintiffs, and they too prayed for a determination favorable to them, and that title vest in them. Plaintiffs filed their replication, wherein they set up the 10 and 30-year statutes of limitations. Upon a trial, before the court, sitting as a jury, plaintiff, T. M. Mathis, was adjudged the owner of an undivided one-half of lot 13 and the life estate of defendant Horace Bates in the other undivided one-half of said lot; that subject to the life estate of Horace Bates, owned by the said Mathis, George W. Bates owned an undivided one-half of said lot; plaintiff, Belle Mathis, was adjudged the owner of an undivided one-half of lots 15 and 16 and the life estate of Horace Bates in the other undivided one-half interest in said lots, and that George W. Bates owned an undivided one-half interest in said lots, subject to the life estate of Horace Bates, owned by the said Belle Mathis. From this judgment there were cross-appeals to this court.
Plaintiffs deraigned their title from a tax deed, dated November 10, 1888, filed for record June 8, 1889; mesne and intermediate conveyances down to them; the payment of taxes; adverse occupancy from the year 1908 to the date of the filing of the suit on May 6, 1919; and the failure of defendants to pay taxes for a period of 30 years, they being out of possession, arid failure to bring suit within one year, as provided by section 1311, R. S. 1919.
Defendants derive their title as heirs at law of one Alfred Greer, who obtained a patent to said land, bearing date of July 19, 1859. Alfred Greer, the patentee, died about the years 1859 or 1860, with the legal title vested in him; the same having previously emanated from the United States government. He was survived by one son and two daughers, viz. Winfield, Elizabeth, and Evelyn. Elizabeth married, had no children, and both she and her husband died; Winfield died in 1906, leaving numerous heirs, who are defendants here; Evelyn married Horace Bates in October, 1874, had one child,, defendant George W. Bates. She died in the year 1908. All of the defendants, excepting Horace Bates and George W. Bates, who claim under Evelyn, are claimants as heirs at law of Winfield. Horace Bates, the husband of Evelyn, paid no taxes on said property. The widow of Winfield Greer paid no taxes after his death in 1906. Whatever faxes were paid on said property after 1887 appeared to have been paid by plaintiffs and those under whom they claim. There was some testimony that Winfield Greer in his lifetime had disposed of his interest and had abandoned said property.
Atkinson, Rombauer & Hill, of St. Louis, for plaintiffs.
Henson & Woody, of Poplar Bluff, for defendants.
REEVES, C. (after stating the facts as above).
1. This was a statutory action tried to the court without the intervention of a jury. Being an action at law, whatever conclusions the court reached upon substantial evidence are binding upon us. Hunter et al. v. Moore (Mo.) 202 S. W. 544. In entering its judgment the court must have found that the defendants and those under whom they claimed had been out of possession, and had not paid taxes on said property for the statutory period of 30 years, and such a conclusion was warranted by the testimony (Carson v. Lumber Co., 270 Mo. 238, 192 S. W. 1018; Schofield et al. v. Harrison Land & Mining Co. [Mo.] 187 S. W. 61; Abeles v. Pillman, 281 Mo. 359, 168 S. W. 1180).
2. Upon the death of Alfred freer, the patentee, Elizabeth, Winfield, and Evelyn inherited said property in equal parts. Upon the death of Elizabeth, without issue, Winfield and Evelyn inherited her part, so that they become owners each of an undivided one-half interest.
This suit was filed on May 6, 1919, and the 30 years and 1 year contemplated in said section 1311, R. S. 1919, began to run in May, 1888. Winfield Greer being alive at that time and thereafter until 1906, the statute would run against him as to his part. De Hatre v. Edmonds, 200 Mo. 246, 98 S. W. 744, 10 L. R. A. (N. S.) 86; Crain v. Peterman, 200 Mo. 295, 98 S. W. 600; Fairbanks v. Long, 91 Mo. 628, 4 S. W. 499; Collins v. Pease, 146 Mo. 135, 47 S. W. 925; Scannell v. American Soda Fountain Co., 161 Mo. 606, loc. cit. 619, 61 S. W. 889; Campbell v. Greer, 209 Mo. 199, 108 S. W. 54; Investment Co. v. Curry, 264 Mo. 483, 175 S. W. 201; Laster v. Cunningham Land & Imp. Co. (Mo.) 213 S. W. 89. And subsequent disabilities existing amongst his heirs at his death in 1906 would not stop the running of the statute. Laster v. Cunningham, supra; Shaffer v. Detie, 191 Mo. 377, 90 S. W. 131; Pim v. City of St. Louis. 122 Mo. 655, 27 S. W. 525.
We must hold, therefore, that the 30-year statute of limitations was effective as against Winfield Greer and his heirs, and whatever interest vested in him as an heir at law of Alfred Greer and Elizabeth Greer was lost to them, and under the statute in question became vested in the plaintiffs.
3. Evelyn Greer intermarried with defendant Horace Bates in 1874. She then owned an undivided one-half Interest in said property. Horace Bates, her husband, enjoyed the possessory right thereto, as he had a freehold estate de jure uxoris, with remainder in Evelyn. This was not a right enjoyed by him virtue of an estate by the curtesy, but in virtue of his marital relation, and it is the law that as between the life tenant and the remainderman the life tenant alone enjoys the right to possession (Hall v. French, 165 Mo. 430, 65 S. W. 769; Nichols v. Hobbs [Mo.] 197 S. W. 258; Powell v. Bowen, 279 Mo. 280, 214 S. W. 142) and the statute of limitations will not run against the remainderman during the existence of the life estate. The rights of Horace Bates, having become vested in his wife's property, the Married Woman's Act of 1889 (Rev. St. 1889, § 6869) did not take from him such vested rights (Powell v. Powell, 267 Mo. 117, loc. cit. 127 et seq.. 183 S. W. 625, 188 S. W. 795; Jones et al. v. Himmelberger-Harrison Lumber Co. [Mo.] 223...
To continue reading
Request your trial