Mississippi County v. Vowles

• Decision Date: 16 June 1890
• Citation: 14 S.W. 282,101 Mo. 225
• Parties: MISSISSIPPI COUNTY v. VOWLES.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

14 S.W. 282

101 Mo. 225

MISSISSIPPI COUNTY v. VOWLES.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

June 16, 1890.

ADVERSE POSSESSION — INCLOSED AND UNINCLOSED LAND — DECLARATIONS.

1. Defendant with her husband entered on 80 acres of wild timber land. He cleared 60 acres, (all that was fit for cultivation,) inclosed and cultivated it, using the 20 acres uninclosed for wood, rails, etc. After the husband's death the widow and their children continued to occupy it, and use it in the same manner. Held, that having acquired title by adverse possession to the 60 acres, she was also entitled to the 20 acres uninclosed.

2. In ejectment against deceased's widow, she was properly allowed to introduce deceased's declaration that he had bought the land, for the purpose of showing that his possession was adverse.

Appeal from circuit court, Mississippi county; J. D. FOSTER, Judge.

J. J. Russell, for appellant. Marshall Arnold, for respondent.

BRACE, J.

This is an action in ejectment, instituted in December, 1883, to recover the W. ½ of the N. W. ¼ of section 16, township 26, range 17, in Mississippi county. The facts are undisputed. The tract was a part of the school lands of said county. The defendant is the widow of Henry Vowles, who died in 1867. In the early part of the year 1864, Henry Vowles moved upon this tract, which was timber land, and in a state of nature; built house; cleared and inclosed all of it that was susceptible of cultivation, about 60 acres, and, with his family, continued from that date to reside upon and cultivate the inclosed land, using the uninclosed woodland in connection therewith for rails and wood, up to the time of his death; and since his death his widow, the defendant, and her minor children have continued to so reside upon, use, and occupy said land uninterruptedly until this suit was brought. Vowles, in his life-time, claimed to have bought the land from one Donelly, or his heirs. The land, before being improved, was worth four dollars or five dollars per acre. The value of the improvements put upon it by Vowles was about $1,000. At the time of his death it was worth less than $1,500. At the close of the evidence the court instructed the jury that, under the pleadings and evidence, the plaintiff could not recover, whereupon the plaintiff took a nonsuit, and the court afterwards refusing to set the nonsuit aside, the plaintiff appealed.

1. There was no error in the admission of the declaration of Vowles, deceased, that he had purchased the land. "The tendency of recent adjudications is to admit explanation of a possessor of property as to his title, not with a view to set up such title, but to show whether his possession was adverse under the statute of limitations, or otherwise." Martin v. Bonsack, 61 Mo. 556.

2. The entry of Vowles was...