McCune v. Hull

• Court: Missouri Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: SCOTT
• Citation: McCune v. Hull, 20 Mo. 596 (Mo. 1855)
• Decision Date: 31 March 1855
• Parties: MCCUNE & VANDEVENTER, Plaintiffs in Error, v. HULL & WIFE, Defendants in Error.

20 Mo. 596

MCCUNE & VANDEVENTER, Plaintiffs in Error,

v.HULL & WIFE, Defendants in Error.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

March Term, 1855.

1. An action by one tenant in common to compel a co-tenant, who has received more than his share of the rents, to account, is one, jurisdiction of which is not taken away from the St. Louis Circuit Court by the act establishing the Land Court.

Error to St. Louis Circuit Court.

The petition alleged that the plaintiffs and defendants were tenants in common of a tract of land in St. Louis, and that the defendants had received all the rents and profits. The plaintiffs prayed for an account, and for judgment for their proportion. A demurrer to the petition, for want of jurisdiction, was sustained by the Circuit Court.

C. C. Whittelsey, for plaintiffs in error.

C. B. Lord, for defendants in error.

SCOTT, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

1. By the constitution, it is prescribed that the Circuit Court shall have exclusive original jurisdiction in all civil cases, which shall not be cognizable before justices of the peace, until otherwise directed by the general assembly. The Circuit Court, then, is the original constitutional court, possessing all jurisdiction not exercised by justices of the peace. When, therefore, other tribunals are created, clothed with a portion of the jurisdiction of this original court, and a question arises between this original court and those afterwards created, in cases of doubt, the presumption should be in favor of the original court. This action is what would have been formerly called an action of account, given by our statute to one co-tenant against another, who has received “more than his due proportion of the benefit of the estate.” It is a case in which no action lay at common law, for the want of privity of contract between the parties. It was a wrong merely for which the statute of the 4th of Anne, which we have adopted, gave an action. It is no action founded on contract...