Reader v. Williams

• Decision Date: 01 December 1919
• Docket Number: No. 20104.,20104.
• Citation: 216 S.W. 738
• Parties: READER et al. v. WILLIAMS.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

216 S.W. 738

READER et al. v. WILLIAMS.

No. 20104.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.

December 1, 1919.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Macon County; Nat M. Shelton, Judge.

Suit by John Reader and others against James E. Williams. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Newlan Conkling and S. J. & G. C. Jones, all of Carrollton, for appellant.

Ed. S. Jones, of Macon, for respondent.

BLAIR, P. J.

This is a suit to quiet title to 40 acres of Macon county land. Respondents, the surviving husband and children of Jennie Reader (née Williams), deceased, had judgment, and this appeal followed. The petition alleges, in substance, that in 1901 Jacob S. Williams, Mrs. Reader's father, made a parol gift of the land to her and put her in possession; that she occupied the land as hers until her death in 1912; that plaintiffs have had possession since and are now in possession; and that title has vested under the 10-year statute of limitation. Appellant, claims under a deed from his father, Jacob S. Williams, executed after Mrs, Reader's death.

I. Appellant's principal contention is that the evidence is not sufficiently "clear, cogent, and convincing" to establish a parol gift. Typical of the cases cited are Johnson v. Quarles, 46 Mo. 423; Russell v. Sharp, 192 Mo. 270, 91 S. W. 134, 111 Am. St. Rep. 496, and King v. Isley, 116 Mo. 155, 22 S. W. 634. These are cases to establish trusts and for specific performance of oral contracts for conveyances of land. In such cases the gift or contract is the basis of the claim, and its enforcement in equity is the thing sought. Appellant's argument seems to assume this is such a case. The contrary is true. The respondents rely upon a title by adverse possession purely legal in its nature. The petition alleges respondents had acquired title by force of the 10-year statute. There is no allegation grounded upon equitable rights growing out of the gift and. subsequent possession, improvements, etc. The cases cited have no application.

II. No investiture of title by or through the gift in asserted. The statute of frauds constitutes no obstacle to the acquisition of title by adverse possession.

III. It is said there is no evidence tending to prove title by adverse possession. Appellant does not argue the question, nor does he cite cases in support of this position. There is ample evidence that Jacob S. Williams, in 1901, bought the land for $200; stated he intended to give it to his daughter, Jennie Reader, for a home; subsequently stated he had given it to her; the land was poor and unimproved and uncleared; the Readers fenced it, cleared it, put it in cultivation and in pasture, built a three-room house and a barn and corn cribs on it, dug a well and set out a small orchard, occupied it continuously until Jennie Reader's death in 1912, and the family have occupied it since; that Reader paid the back taxes for 1900 and the taxes for 1901 to 1910, inclusive, except for 1904, for which year Jennie Reader paid them, personally; that the property was assessed to John Reader for the year of the trial; and that Jacob S. Williams paid no taxes and exercised no rights over the property after putting his daughter and her family in possession in 1901. Jennie Reader and Jacob S. Williams both died before the trial. For defendants there was evidence tending to show statements and actions of Jacob S. Williams inconsistent with the idea of a parol gift of the land to his daughter; evidence that he, in 1910, had notice served on John Reader, the husband, to vacate the property, and that Reader had admitted he did not claim the land. A letter written by Mrs. Reader in March, 1912, was offered, in which, among a great many other things not relevant in this case, she wrote "We are still on the 40. Father hasn't made move since the notice, and if he only would and have it over with, I'd feel so much better. I wrote to Charlie telling him how I felt & begging him to tell father & ask him to put us off but so far have heard nothing. I really think father isn't treating me right. He knows how poorly I've been & how the mind affects the body & this way I'm worried and uneasy all the time. John won't get off till he is put off if he lives here 40 yrs. & I tell him I am going to move to or very near New C. before garden making time & I am. He said he knew I wouldn't stay by him but I begged him to go with us so we could all be together, told him how his people gave us nearly all our fruit & we could get so much more if we didn't live so far away."

Appellant also introduced a letter from Reader to his brother-in-law, C. S. Williams. This indicates a friendly attitude to the addressee, and refers to usual topics, until in closing Reader writes that Jacob S. Williams and appellant have lied to him and tried to cheat him out of all he has made in 10 years, and are trying to "rob the boys so they will be left at the mercy of the world." The letter concludes With some threats. This was dated November 8, 1913.

The law of this state is that when one is put in possession of lands under a parol gift the possession of the donee is adverse from its inception. Rannels v. Rannels, 52 Mo. loc. cit. 114; Hargis v. Railway, 100 Mo. loc. cit. 217, 13 S. W. 680. The fact that one is put in possession under a parol gift is itself evidence of adverse possession. Allen v. Mansfield, 108 Mo. loc. cit. 348, 351, 18 S. W. 901. This is in accord with the weight of authority. Campbell v. Braden, 96 Pa. loc. cit. 390; Thomson v. Thomson, 93 Ky. 435, 20 S. W. 373; ...