Sanzenbacher v. Santhuff
Citation | 119 S.W. 395,220 Mo. 274 |
Parties | SANZENBACHER v. SANTHUFF et al. |
Decision Date | 30 March 1909 |
Court | United States State Supreme Court of Missouri |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Reynolds County; Jos. J. Williams, Judge.
Action by Pauline Sanzenbacher against George Santhuff and others. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal. Reversed and remanded.
R. I. January and Dinning & Dinning, for appellants. J. B. Daniel, for respondent.
This is a suit in equity by which plaintiff seeks to have certain deeds to land in Reynolds county set aside and for naught held. Plaintiff in her petition states: That she is now, and at all times mentioned in the petition was, a married woman and a resident of the state of Ohio. That on October 21, 1880, she purchased from one M. C. Parker the following described land, situated in the county of Reynolds, in the state of Missouri, to wit: The S. W. ¼ of section 3 and the S. E. ¼ of section 4, all in township 31 N. of range 2 W. of the Fifth principal meridian in Missouri. That the deed from said Parker to her was duly filed on March 21, 1881, in the office of the recorder of deeds of said county, and is recorded in Deed Book 11, at page 217; that plaintiff, from the date of her said purchase, has continued to be the owner and in the legal possession of all of said land, and has paid all of the taxes on the same except for the year 1892, when the taxes thereon were paid by some person to her unknown, but without her knowledge or consent. The petition contains the further averments: That the petition in said tax suit was wholly insufficient to authorize the court to render any judgment thereon; that the said publication was wholly insufficient...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Byam v. Kansas City Public Service Co.
...grantors not to confer upon him any sovereignty over the right-of-way, but to perpetuate its public use for railway purposes. Sanzenbacher v. Santhuff, 220 Mo. 274; v. Slavens, 218 Mo. 598; Ettenson v. Railroad Co., 248 Mo. 395. Hyde, C. Ferguson and Sturgis, CC., concur. OPINION HYDE This ......
-
Henneke v. Gasconade Power Co.
...of error numbered 3 and 4 are too general and undeveloped to present anything for review. Martin v. Connor, 128 S.W.2d 309; Sangenbacher v. Santhuff, 220 Mo. 274; School District of Kansas City v. Phoenix Land & Improvement Co., 297 Mo. 332; Artz v. 71 S.W.2d 795; Miller v. Mutual Benefit H......
-
Cazzell v. Schofield
...... court to search the record for errors not specifically called. to our attention. [ Sanzenbacher v. Santhuff, 220 Mo. 274, 282; Christine v. Luyties, 280 Mo. 416, 431;. Maloney v. Railways Co., 237 S.W. 509, 512;. Barnett v. Hastain, ......
-
Byam v. Public Service Co., 29696.
...grantors not to confer upon him any sovereignty over the right-of-way, but to perpetuate its public use for railway purposes. Sanzenbacher v. Santhuff, 220 Mo. 274; Hubbard v. Slavens, 218 Mo. 598; Ettenson v. Railroad Co., 248 Mo. HYDE, C. This action is ejectment, the answer a general den......