Robinson v. Walker

• Decision Date: 31 March 1872
• Citation: 50 Mo. 19
• Parties: WILLIAM J. ROBINSON, Respondent, v. T. A. WALKER, EXECUTOR OF ISAAC WALKER, DECEASED, Appellant.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

50 Mo. 19

WILLIAM J. ROBINSON, Respondent,

v.T. A. WALKER, EXECUTOR OF ISAAC WALKER, DECEASED, Appellant.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

March Term, 1872.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court.

Glover & Shepley, for appellant.

Hill & Jewett, for respondent.

ADAMS, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

The plaintiff obtained a judgment, in an action of forcible entry and detainer, against the defendant's testator, before a justice of the peace. From this judgment the defendant's testator appealed to the Circuit Court, and a motion was made there to dismiss the appeal, which was finally sustained on appeal to the Supreme Court, leaving the judgment for restitution, damages and monthly rents in full force before the justice of the peace. In the mean time the defendant's testator died, and this judgment was presented to the Probate Court of St. Louis county for allowance.

The facts in regard to the title to the property recovered in the forcible entry and detainer case were that the defendant's testator had leased or become the assignee of a lease of the property to the plaintiff for some eighteen months, or eighteen months of the lease had not expired; the testator, being the owner at the same time of a longer lease from the holder of the fee, forced the possession from the plaintiff, and he instituted his action, as above stated, by forcible entry and detainer.

When the judgment was presented to the Probate Court, the executor claimed a deduction for the rent up to the unexpired term of Robinson (the plaintiff), and that the plaintiff's right in the premises by lease having expired, he could not be allowed on his judgment any rents after such expiration.

The Probate Court having made deductions, the plaintiff appealed to the Circuit Court, and that court modified the judgment of the Probate Court by deducting rents up to the expiration of plaintiff's lease, and made no further deduction. The defendant appealed from this judgment to the General Term, where the judgment at Special Term was affirmed, and he has appealed to this court.

The principle is well established that in forcible entry and detainer cases the title to the premises cannot be inquired into. So, in a proceeding of that kind, although the defendant may be the absolute fee-simple owner of the property, and, as such, entitled to the immediate possession, yet he has no right by force to dispossess the party in possession. If he wants the possession he must resort to his proper action either of ejectment, forcible entry and detainer, or unlawful detainer, as the case may be. If, however, in disregard of the statute law on this...