Matson v. Calhoun
| Decision Date | 31 August 1869 |
| Citation | 44 Mo. 368 |
| Parties | WILLIAM MATSON, Appellant, v. SAMUEL P. CALHOUN, Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Error to Fourth District Court.
G. D. Burgess, for appellant.
Improvements and buildings erected on the land of another become the property of the land-owner. (1 Washb. on Real Prop. 4; Crest v. Jack, 3 Watts, Penn., 239; West v. Stewart, 7 Penn. St. 122.) And defendant in this suit was guilty of trespass in throwing down the fence and removing the rails. (2 Greenl. Ev. § 617; 28 Mo. 556.) This is so, even if the fence had been placed there by a license from plaintiff. (Prince v. Case, 2 Am. Lead. Cas. 527; Benedict v. Benedict, 5 Day, 464-9.)
A. W. Mullins, for respondent, cited Chouteau et al. v. Goddin et al., 39 Mo. 250, 251, and cases there cited; Fuhr v. Dean, 26 Mo. 116; Miller v. Platt, 4 Duer, N. Y., 284; Walter v. Post, 4 Abb. N. Y. Pr. 389; 2 Am. Lead. Cas. 753; 6 Hill, N. Y., 61; 2 Seld., N. Y., 279; 2 Hare & Wall. Am. Lead. Cas. 748.
These parties were adjoining land-owners. In 1858 the defendant erected a rail fence upon a line dividing his lands from the lands of the plaintiff, as he supposed and believed. A subsequent survey, however, disclosed the fact that the fence was built upon the plaintiff's land, a rod or more from the true line of division separating the two lots. The defendant thereupon removed the fence back to its true position. The fence having been built upon the plaintiff's lands, he claims the rails composing it as his property, and sues for their value. The defendant claims to have placed the fence where it was originally constructed, with the knowledge and upon the license and permission of the plaintiff, and sets up these facts in bar of the action. Issue was joined on these averments. The trial resulted in a verdict for the defendant, and the plaintiff brings the case here by successive appeals.
At the trial the plaintiff asked instructions based on the theory that the erection of the fence upon the plaintiff's land operated to vest the title thereto in him. These instructions were refused; and the court instructed the jury, at the instance of the defendant, to the effect that if they found from the evidence that the fence was originally placed on the plaintiff's lands through mistake, and upon the license and permission of the plaintiff, and that the defendant removed it back to the true line in a reasonable time after the error was discovered, his acts therein were justifiable, and that the verdict should be in his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Anson v. Tietze
... ... a fence mistakenly placed on the supposed line will not ... invest title in land wrongly enclosed. Shad v ... Sharp, 95 Mo. 573; Matson v. Calhoun, 44 Mo ... 368; Patton Smith, 171 Mo. 231; Ackerman v. Ryder, ... 308 Mo. 9, 271 S.W. 743; Corrigan v. Early, 183 S.W ... 574 ... ...
-
Coffman v. Saline Valley Railroad Company
... ... Dwyer, 78 Iowa 279; 5 L.R.A. 594; ... Thompson v. Smith, 111 Iowa 7181; 50 L.R.A. 780; ... Joplin Supply Co. v. West, 149 Mo.App. 78; ... Matson v. Calhoon, 44 Mo. 368; Gregg v ... Railroad, 48 Mo.App. 498; Lowenberg v. Bernd, ... 47 Mo. 298; Hines v. Ament, 43 Mo. 298; Machin ... v ... ...
-
Horton v. St. Louis, Kansas City & Northern Ry. Co.
...(4) The same is true of plaintiff's fourth instruction. Kansas City Hotel Co. v. Sauer, 65 Mo. 279; Siebel v. Siemon, 52 Mo. 363; Matson v. Calhoun, 44 Mo. 368. The fifth instruction of plaintiff is the law. Hearne et al. v. Chillicothe and Brunswick R. R. Co. et al., 53 Mo. 324. (5) The si......
-
Alamance Lumber Co. v. Edwards
...76 A. 237; Crump v. Sanders, Tex.Civ.App., 1915, 173 S.W. 559; 31 C.J. 318-319; Gordon v. Fahrenberg & Penn, 26 La.Ann. 366; Matson v. Calhoun, 44 Mo. 368; Uthoff v. Thompson, 1933, 176 La. 599, 146 So. Olin et al. v. Reinecke et al., 1929, 336 Ill. 530, 168 N.E. 676. See, also, 31 C.J., p.......