Robertson v. Drone
| Decision Date | 22 March 1890 |
| Citation | 13 S.W. 405,100 Mo. 273 |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
| Parties | ROBERTSON v. DRONE. |
1. In ejectment the only question was the location of a boundary line. The jury found for plaintiff, and that "the Ross survey is the correct line, being seven and nine feet south of the hedge as shown by the evidence." There was nothing in the petition to show where the boundary was, or ought to be. Held, that a judgment for the land described in the petition, and for possession "not further south than the boundary line in said verdict described," was too vague and indefinite.
2. Plaintiff's right to recover, on the evidence, depended on the establishment of the Ross line as the true dividing line. The court instructed that if the jury believed that the survey made by Ross was substantially correct, and in accordance with the old survey made by Kirtly, they should find the Ross line to be correct. Held error, there being nothing to warrant the declaration, as a matter of law, that the Kirtly survey was the true dividing line, and defendant not having conceded it to be the true line.
Appeal from circuit court, Saline county; J. P. STROTHER, Judge.
Geo. L. Hays and Boyd & Sebree, for appellant. Davis & Wingfield, for respondent.
This is an action in ejectment, the only question at issue being the correct location of the boundary line between plaintiff, who is the owner of the E. ½ of the N. E. ¼ of section 6, township 50, range 23, and the defendant, who is the owner of the E. ½ of the S. E. ¼ of the same section. The jury returned the following verdict: "We, the jury, find for the plaintiff, and find that the Ross survey is the correct line, being seven and nine feet south of the hedge as shown by the evidence, and also give one cent damages to the plaintiff." Upon this verdict the court rendered the following judgment: "That the plaintiff recover of defendant the possession of the lands described in the petition, to-wit: The east half of the north-east ¼ of section 6, township 50, range 23, in Saline county, Mo., lying south of the hedge, with one cent damages, without monthly rents and profits, and that the plaintiff recover from the defendant the costs of the suit; and the court both further order that an execution issue to restore to said plaintiff the possession of said lands and tenements, or so much thereof, not further south than the boundary line in said verdict described, as said defendant shall be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hecker v. Bleish
...and uncertain in its description of the land as to render it void for uncertainty. [Livingston County v. Morris, 71 Mo. 603; Robertson v. Drane, 100 Mo. 273; Franklin v. Haynes, 139 Mo. 311; Bricken v. Cross, 140 Mo. 166; Collins v. Andriano, 264 Mo. 475.] It is clear to our minds that the ......
-
Hecker v. Bleish
...and uncertain in its description of the land as to render it void for uncertainty. [Livingston County v. Morris, 71 Mo. 603; Robertson v. Drane, 100 Mo. 273; Franklin v. Haynes, 139 Mo. 311; Bricken Cross, 140 Mo. 166; Collins v. Andriano, 264 Mo. 475.] It is clear to our minds that the jud......
-
Tillman v. Hutcherson
...The Brummel case cited below said a reference to "the fence now standing on the land" was a sufficient designation of a boundary. In the Robertson case a judgment awarding that part of a described eighty acres "lying south of the hedge" was held to be too indefinite. And the Eversmeyer case......
-
Howell v. Sherwood
...to restore to the possession of the plaintiff, and not being susceptible of intelligent execution, ought to be set aside. [Robertson v. Drane, 100 Mo. 273, 13 S.W. 405.]" the head of the "Form, Requisites, and Sufficiency," of judgment in ejectment, 15 Cyc. 176, thus speaks: "The land shoul......