Randall v. Schmidt
| Decision Date | 25 October 1941 |
| Docket Number | 36625 |
| Parties | RANDALL v. SCHMIDT |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied December 16, 1941.
Motion to Transfer to Court in Banc Denied March 13, 1942.
Staunton E. Boudreau and Thos. J. Noonan, both of St. Louis, for appellant.
Joseph T. Davis, of St. Louis, for respondent.
BARRETT, Commissioner.
The plaintiff, Lillian I. Randall, appeals from an adverse verdict and judgment, which she sought, in ejectment, for damages and to quiet title, against Otto Schmidt. The facts as we state them, are taken for the most part from the pleadings, the defendant's brief and the opinion of this court in Point Prairie Hunting & Fishing Club v. Schmidt, 44 S.W.2d 73. That case was between the same parties, Lillian I. Randall being substituted for Point Prairie Hunting and Fishing Club, and involved the title to 56:76 acres of land on what is commonly known as Bull Island, and this case involves the title to 12:72 acres of land adjoining on the south and immediately north of the old center line of the Missouri River, in Franklin County.
The plaintiff's conventional petition alleges that she is entitled to the possession of the specifically described 12:72 acres and damages for its unlawful withholding, and that she is entitled to have the title thereto quieted. The defendant answered, pleading that the case of Point Prairie Hunting and Fishing Club v. Schmidt, supra, involved the same issues and was, therefore, res adjudicata estopping the plaintiff from recovering the 12:72 acres. The answer states that the instant suit is for the recovery of land which is a part of the same tract involved in the other Schmidt case and that the plaintiff in the former action alleged and proved a fixed and described boundary to the land she then claimed and that this tract is immediately outside the boundary fixed by the plaintiff's former judgment and that, therefore, she is estopped from enlarging the boundary line. The defendant claims to own the 12:72 acres on the theory that it was accreted to his farm by the reliction of the Missouri River, which extended to the south bank of the river or an old slough between Bull Island and the mainland. The defendant also claimed title by reason of adverse possession and by purchase from Franklin County. He also asked that title to the tract be quieted.
The plaintiff replied, pleading the opinion in Point Prairie Hunting and Fishing Club v. Schmidt, supra, as res adjudicata as against the defendant.
In this case the real issue between the parties is the ownership of the 12:72 acres, as title and ownership of the 56:76 acres was the real issue in the former case between the same parties. The history of the land in question and of the title of both plaintiff and defendant is fully and capably set forth in that opinion and it is not necessary to set them out here, except to say that the 12:72 acres is a strip south of and adjoining the 56:76 acres and north of the center line of the slough or river as fixed by the commissioners in the former case.
As a matter of fact, the sole question in this case is whether or not the trial court, at some point in the instant proceeding, should have directed a verdict for the plaintiff for the reason that this court's judgment in the other suit was res adjudicata of the issues now involved.
The record contains a long colloquy between court and counsel, from which it appears that that was the only point puzzling the court. The court was finally of the view that the former opinion left an issue as to the 12:72 acres because the plaintiff sought and obtained an adjudication of a definitely described 56:76 acres and not of a boundary line which was the center of the old slough or Missouri River bed. The plaintiff's theory, as to the facts entitling her to recover, is set forth in instruction number one, while the defendant's theory is set forth in instruction number seven, both of which indicate that the trial court's position was that the title to the 12:72 acres was open to litigation and depended on the persuasiveness of the evidence adduced by the parties with the jury.
Instruction one told the jury that if they found that the 12:72 acres of land '* * * described in the evidence is located north of the center line of the Missouri River as described in the evidence to have existed between Bull Island and the mainland then you will find the issues for the plaintiff * * *,' while instruction seven told the jury that the issue between the plaintiff and defendant was the title and possession of the land and said, 'Therefore, if you find and believe that defendant has a title superior to plaintiff's title, your verdict will be for defendant * * *.' The defendant says that these were the issues and that the jury did not believe the plaintiff's evidence and theory, while the plaintiff says that a verdict should have been directed for her.
Evidence was offered locating the land and fully covering previous surveys. All the pleadings and the former opinion of this court were introduced. The defendant put in evidence abandoned pleadings of the plaintiff and especially a motion for a nunc pro tunc entry to correct the judgment affirmed by the former opinion and which motion states that she intended that the southern boundary line of the described 56:76 acres should coincide with the line marking the juncture of the accretions of the defendant's shorelands and the accretions of plaintiff's Bull Island and that the 12:72 acres was omitted by mistake.
The defendant concedes that the 12:72 acres is a part of the general tract involved in the former case, but says that it is nearer the defendant's shoreland, though north of the old center line of the slough or river.
There is virtually no dispute between the parties as to the law. Both rely on the former opinion as being res adjudicata in their favor. The only question is whether or not the previous opinion is res adjudicata as to the establishment of the center line of the old slough or river. The plaintiff says it is, while the defendant says that neither of the courts in the former case were called upon to fix and find a boundary line, but only to find title to the specifically described 56:76 acres and that the location of the line is open for determination in this case. The defendant's theory is that if a line was established by the former opinion that it became and was a mere evidentiary fact to be considered with all the evidence as to the location of the true boundary and, therefore, of title to the 12:72 acres.
As we have stated, the parties agree that it is possible to have several ejectment suits between the same parties, having the same defenses, and concerning the same title and possession and similar on the facts and yet one is not an estoppel as to the other so as to preclude subsequent...
To continue reading
Request your trial