Mooneyham v. Mynatt

• Decision Date: 02 June 1920
• Docket Number: No. 20596.,20596.
• Citation: 222 S.W. 451
• Parties: MOONEYHAM v. MYNATT et al.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

222 S.W. 451

MOONEYHAM v. MYNATT et al.

No. 20596.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.

June 2, 1920.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jasper County; Joseph D. Perkins, Judge.

Suit by R. A. Mooneyham against Fannie Mynatt and others. Judgment for defendant, Stubblefield, and the other defendants appeal. Affirmed.

J. H. & W. E. Bailey, of Carthage, for appellants.

John H. Crain, of Ft. Scott, Iran., for respondent Stubblefield.

BLAIR, P. J.

This is a suit under section 2535, R. S. 1909, to quiet title to Jasper county land. After the answers were in the original plaintiff withdrew, and the case proceeded to judgment upon the conflicting claims of parties defendant. Appellants are the heirs of A. J. Osborn, who, they contend, acquired title by adverse possession. Respondent and his sister are nephew and niece of George and John Prigmore, who had the record title and died without issue. Respondent had acquired his sister's interest by deed. Respondent had appeared and answered in response to notice to the unknown heirs of George and John Prigmore. The case was at law, and was tried without a jury. No declarations of law were asked or given. The principal question presented is whether there is any correct legal theory, supported by substantial evidence, justifying the judgment. Thompson v. Stilwell, 253 Mo. loc. cit. 94, 161 S. W. 681.

There was evidence tending to prove that A. J. Osborn had possession of the land for the requisite period, and some evidence that he claimed ownership of it. There was other evidence tending to prove that Osborn took possession of the land to care for it for the benefit of the heirs of George and John Prigmore and in recognition of their title. The trial court settled the conflict against appellants, and its finding, in the circumstances, is conclusive. Thompson v. Stilwell, supra, 253 Mo. loc. cit. 96, 161 S. W. 681.

It is contended that evidence offered to prove that respondent and his sister are the only surviving heirs of George and John Prigmore is not sufficient to justify the court's finding that they were so. The suit was brought against the unknown heirs of George and John Prigmore. The trial court appointed counsel (section 1776, R. S. 1909) to represent such of these, if any, as did not appear. Answer was filed for them. It is not suggested there was any defect in the notice. The issue whether respondent and his sister were the only heirs was tried, and the trial court sustained respondent's contention....