Platt v. Parker-Washington Co.

• Decision Date: 01 July 1911
• Citation: 235 Mo. 467,139 S.W. 124
• Parties: PLATT v. PARKER-WASHINGTON CO. et al.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

139 S.W. 124

235 Mo. 467

PLATT v. PARKER-WASHINGTON CO. et al.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.

July 1, 1911.

COURTS (§ 231)—APPELLATE JURISDICTION— SUBJECT-MATTER OF CONTROVERSY.

Where a petition alleged that plaintiff was the owner in fee of land, and that defendants claimed some title, estate, and interest therein adverse to plaintiff's title, and sought to have his title quieted, as authorized by Rev. St. 1899, § 650, but the defendant set up no title to the land, except a tax bill which the plaintiff by reply sought to avoid because of fraud, though the decree declared that the land belonged to plaintiff, such fact not being disputed, the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction of an appeal from the decree.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County; Walter A. Powell, Judge.

Action by Mortimer R. Platt against the Parker-Washington Company and others. From a decree for plaintiff, defendants appeal. Transferred to Kansas City Court of Appeals.

Ball & Ryland, for appellants. Clyde Taylor, for respondent.

VALLIANT, J.

In the beginning this seemed to be a suit to quiet title to land under section 650, R. S. 1899, but the answer and reply reduced it to a suit to test the validity of a special tax bill held by one of the defendants for paving the street in front of the land described in the petition. In his petition plaintiff stated that he was the owner in fee of the land described, and that defendants claimed some "title estate and interest therein adverse to plaintiff's title.' The Parker-Washington Company is one of the defendants. The others are described as "unknown persons" who claim an interest in the land by virtue of a certain tax bill for $618.13 assigned to them by the Parker-Washington Company, and which they claim to be a lawful lien on plaintiff's land. The prayer is that the court ascertain and determine the title, estate, and interest of plaintiff, and defendants and each of them, respectively, and by its judgment and decree define whatever interest the several parties, plaintiff and defendants, have in the land.

The only answer filed was that of the Parker Washington Company. The other defendants, the "unknown persons," seem to have dropped out of the case or were never in. At all events, the decree refers to but one defendant. That one is the Parker-Washington Company. In its answer that defendant sets up no title to the land or interest therein except the tax bill, which it says it had owned, but had assigned before the suit was commenced, but had repurchased it since the suit was brought, and now holds it, and that it is a valid lien on the land. That was the only interest the defendant claimed in the land. The answer concluded with a prayer that the tax bill be adjudged a legal lien on the land, and that a special execution issue for its enforcement. The plaintiff filed a reply in which he stated certain facts to show that the tax bill was invalid because of fraud practiced by the defendant in obtaining the contract from the city under which the...