McLarty v. Griggs
| Decision Date | 04 June 1920 |
| Docket Number | No. 21257.,21257. |
| Parties | McLARTY v. GRIGGS. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Pemiscot County; Sterling H. McCarty, Judge.
Suit by Dorothy McLarty against Joe Griggs. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
This is an action under section 2535, R. S. 1909, to ascertain and determine the title to 80 acres of land in Pemiscot county, Mo. The petition is in conventional form, and, after asserting ownership in plaintiff and alleging that defendant claims some interest therein, the petition asks the court "to try, ascertain and determine the estate, title, and interest of the parties plaintiff and defendant severally in and to said real property, and to define and adjudge by its judgment or decree the estate, title and rights and interests of the parties plaintiff and defendant, respectively, in and to the same." (Italics ours.) The answer admits that defendant claims to own, and alleges that he does own, the land in controversy, and that plaintiff has no right, title or interest therein. The reply was a general denial. Trial was had before the circuit court of Pemiscot county, without a jury, resulting in a judgment decreeing that plaintiff had no title, interest, or estate in said land, but that the title thereto was in the defendant. Thereupon plaintiff duly appealed to this court.
N. C. Hawkins, of Caruthersville, for appellant.
Ward & Reeves, of Caruthersville, for respondent.
I. The record filed in this court by the appellant does not contain a bill of exceptions. In fact no showing is even made that a bill of exceptions was ever filed. Under such conditions we have nothing before us for review except the record proper.
II. The only point raised upon the record proper is that the court erred in decreeing title to be in defendant when defendant's answer did not contain a prayer so to do.
The statute (section 2535, R. S. 1909), contemplates that in such actions the court will "define and adjudge by its judgment or decree the title, estate and interest of the parties severally in and to such real property." In the case at bar the plaintiff in his petition specifically asked that this be done. Having requested the court to ascertain and adjudge the interest of defendant in said land, he is certainly in no position to criticize the court for so doing. This exact point was ruled against the present contention of appellant in the case of Lumber Co. v. Jones, 220 Mo....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Scott v. Rees
...211 S.W. 391; Crosby v. Farmer's Bank, 107 Mo. 436; Harper v. Kemble, 65 Mo.App. 514; Lumber Co. v. Jones, 220 Mo. 190; McLarty v. Griggs, 222 S.W. 391. C. Lindsay, C., concurs. OPINION SMALL, C. -- The error complained of is the refusal of the circuit court to correct a judgment against th......
-
Frederick Meffert Stripe v. Meffert
...v. Solar, 183 S.W. 1037; Brook v. Roberts, 195 S.W. 1021; Coulson v. Le Plant, 196 S.W. 1144; Brandt v. Brents, 177 S.W. 377; McLarty v. Griggs, 222 S.W. 391; Brooks Roberts, 220 S.W. 11; St. Louis Union Trust Co. v. Hill, 223 S.W. 435; Mooneyham v. Wynatt, 222 S.W. 451. (2) Sec. 342, R. S.......
-
Mastin v. Ireland
...to the record proper, which as above stated, consists of the petition, two answers, the reply and No Exceptions. judgment [McLarty v. Griggs, 222 S.W. 391.] As the appellant has not preserved for review the lease or contract referred to in the pleadings, we must assume that the trial court ......
-
Mastin v. Ireland
...in our examination to the record proper, which as above stated, consists of the petition, two answers, the reply and judgment. [McLarty v. Griggs, 222 S.W. 391.] As appellant has not preserved for review the lease or contract referred to in the pleadings, we must assume that the trial court......