Rohlf v. Hayes
| Decision Date | 05 March 1921 |
| Docket Number | No. 21785.,21785. |
| Citation | 229 S.W. 747,287 Mo. 340 |
| Parties | ROHLF v. HAYES et al. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County; Thomas J. Seehorn, Judge.
Suit to quiet title by W. A. Rohlf against John Hayes and another. Judgment for the plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.
The petition is an ordinary one to quiet title, under the statute, to a portion of lot 8 of Harrison Boulevard Place, an addition to Kansas City, Mo. Plaintiff claims a fee-simple title in the petition, and avers that defendants "claim some right, title, or interest" in this portion of said lot. Defendants' answer reads thus:
"Now come the defendants and for answer to the plaintiff's petition deny each and every allegation therein contained."
After hearing evidence upon the part of plaintiffs, the defendants demurred thereto, and stood upon their demurrer. The court entered judgment for plaintiffs, and defendants have appealed. They challenge here the sufficiency of the evidence to show fee-simple title in plaintiff, and this in the face of their answer wherein they denied that they claimed any "right, title, or interest" in the premises. This outlines the case.
Jos. S. Brooks, of Kansas City, for appellants.
A. I. Beach and Bert Steeper, both of Kansas City, for respondents.
GRAVES, J. (after stating the facts as above).
The defendant "has no complaint to make as to this judgment, so far as his brief goes in this court. Under section 2535, R. S. 1909, the statute under which plaintiff proceeded, it was incumbent upon plaintiff to allege in his petition: (1) That he claimed some interest in the property; and (2) that defendants claimed some interest in the property. These two allegations are substantive and vital to a petition under this statute. Defendants in such action may choose their own course in the answer. The procedure is as under our Civil Code. R. S. 1909, § 2536. If defendants default, or, appearing, admit the facts of the petition and consent to judgment, then costs must be taxed against plaintiffs. R. S. 1909, § 2537. In this case defendants did not default, nor did they consent to a judgment for plaintiff as per his petition. They answered, but only by the general denial set out in the statement. By this general denial they denied that they claimed any title or interest in the premises. With this denial of record, they passed out of the case below, and here, as parties having an interest...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Curry v. Crull
... ... be heard in opposition to plaintiff's contention ... Gilchrist v. Bryant, 213 Mo. 422; Rohlf v ... Hayes, 287 Mo. 340; Barr v. Stone, 242 S.W. 661 ... Westhues, ... C. Cooley and Bohling, CC., concur ... ...
-
Sanders v. Jones
...thereafter attacking the judgment if given for plaintiff. 4 Houts's Pl. & P., sec. 1065, p. 237; Gilchrist v. Bryant, 213 Mo. 442; Rohf v. Hayes, 287 Mo. 340. (2) By said third and fourth clauses of said will, title to the land in suit vested in the widow. Minnie Sanders, during her natural......
-
Boone v. Ledbetter
...* * *" on which the lien was declared? What would it profit them if the cause should be reversed and remanded? In the case of Rohlf v. Hayes, 287 Mo. 340, the Supreme Court discussed a somewhat similiar situation and held that the defendants could not appeal. That suit involved title to rea......
-
Essen v. Adams
... ... such defendants, as by such answers such defendants passed ... out of the case. Rohlf v. Hayes, 287 Mo. 342, 229 ... S.W. 747. (c) Even though such defendants had embodied in ... their respective answers the additional facts set ... ...