Maynor v. Tyler Land & Timber Co.

• Decision Date: 20 June 1911
• Citation: 139 S.W. 393,236 Mo. 722
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court
• Parties: MAYNOR et al. v. TYLER LAND & TIMBER CO.

139 S.W. 393

236 Mo. 722

MAYNOR et al. v. TYLER LAND & TIMBER CO.

Supreme Court of Missouri. Division No. 2.

June 20, 1911.

1. QUIETING TITLE (§ 1)—NATURE OF REMEDY.

A suit to quiet title, under Rev. St. 1909, § 2535, is a special statutory action to adjudge the respective estate, title, and interest of several claimants to land.

2. QUIETING TITLE (§ 10)—NATURE OF REMEDY —GROUNDS FOR RELIEF.

In a suit to quiet title, plaintiff is entitled to a decree, if his title be good against the defendant.

3. TAXATION (§ 810) — TAX TITLES — PRESUMPTIONS.

In a suit to quiet title, defendant recognized M., who died in 1876, as the common source of title and claimed, by a purchase in 1880 under a tax sale, to have acquired title to the land. Rev. St. 1909, §§ 6346, 11,501, respectively, provide that all deeds executed by any sheriff to a purchaser of land sold for delinquent taxes shall be prima facie evidence that the persons named as defendants were the absolute owners of the land conveyed, and that deeds executed by the sheriffs to property sold for taxes shall be prima facie evidence of title, and that the matters and things therein stated are true. Held, that an entry in an abstract of title made evidence by statute because of the burning of the county records, reciting a sheriff's deed, dated March 10, 1880, "M. land," raised none of those presumptions, M. having died before the sale, and as no one else was named as owner the sale must be held to be void.

4. QUIETING TITLE (§ 44) — ACTIONS — EVIDENCE —SUFFICIENCY.

In view of the fact that a decree in a suit to quiet title precludes only the defendant, evidence held sufficient to support a decree for plaintiff.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Pemiscot County; Henry C. Riley, Judge.

Action by J. W. Maynor and others against the Tyler Land & Timber Company. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

The records of Pemiscot county were burned with the courthouse, and by Sess. Laws 1901, p. 251, the entries in Carleton's Abstract were made evidence on questions of title.

This action to quiet title to 160 acres of land was brought in the circuit court of Pemiscot county, on the 12th of October, 1905.

Plaintiff introduced in evidence certain entries contained in Carleton's Abstract (Session Acts 1901, p. 251), showing the land sued for to be well vested, in 1858, in Richard O. Maynor, under patents from the United States and grants from the state of Missouri and Pemiscot county, Mo. Plaintiff adduced evidence tending to show that Richard O. Maynor died in 1876, leaving a wife and female child, Lovey Ann, living at the time of his death, and another male child, born shortly after his death; that this posthumous child died during infancy; that the wife of Richard O. Maynor was also the mother of a boy, named Harvey L. Pinkston, born of a former marriage; that at the death of Richard O. Maynor his daughter, Lovey Ann, was about five or six years old; that Harvey Pinkston, his stepson, was about 14 years old, and was about 18 years old when he was afterwards killed; that Richard O. Maynor's wife died some time after the death of her husband, without having remarried; that his surviving daughter, Lovey Ann, went to Tennessee. As to what became of her thereafter was shown, as far as may be, by the testimony of Mrs. Elizabeth Maynor, the widow of Luke Maynor, who was a brother of Richard O. Maynor. She testified that on the day of the trial, to wit, August, 1907, she had not been able to receive any tidings of Lovey Ann for 14 years; that she had been told that Lovey Ann was dead; that she did not think Lovey Ann was married at the time of her death, but she could not answer as to that of her own knowledge. "Q. Where was she the last time you heard of her? A. She was over in Tennessee. I can't tell you the exact place. I believe it was Big Sandy, Tenn. I am not certain; but I believe it was. I, as a member of the family, have been making inquiry about her during the past 14 years, from places I heard she formerly resided in Tennessee. I have not been able to find anything of her whereabouts at all. I haven't heard any more of her from that time to this. * * * Q. After Lovey Ann Maynor left Dunklin county and went to Tennessee, you have never been able to get any further trace of her? A. No, sir." This witness further testified that she had been told by the person who informed her of Harvey Pinkston's death that he had never been married. Plaintiffs in this case are the widow and children of Luke Maynor, deceased, the brother of Richard O. Maynor, deceased.

The defendant corporation bases its title to the land upon entry No. 18 from Carleton's Abstract, to wit: "Pemiscot county, relator, to John W. King, sheriff's deed, dated March 10, 1880, and filed and recorded July 10, 1880, Book G, page 23. Consideration, $85.00. Acknowledgment regular. The above deed conveys the northeast quarter of section 20, township 16, range 12 east, containing 120 acres. [Note. — Carleton's Abstract says: `Sold by Benjamin F. Bancroft, sheriff.' Also, under column of Remarks, says: `R. O. Maynor land.']" Defendant also showed other deeds following the above entry, purporting to convey the property, and ending with a deed to defendant on the 27th of May, 1905. The court admitted these offerings over the objections and exceptions of the plaintiffs, except as to the above entry from Carleton's Abstract, referring to a sheriff's deed, which it allowed to be read, subject to plaintiff's objection. The...