Saville v. Bradshaw, 48946
| Decision Date | 10 September 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 2,No. 48946,48946,2 |
| Citation | 359 S.W.2d 676 |
| Parties | Paul SAVILLE and Marvin Saville, Appellants, v. Limuel BRADSHAW and Mrs. Limuel Bradshaw, Respondents |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Frederick E. Steck, Sikeston, for appellant.
Weber Gilmore, Sikeston, for respondent.
BARRETT, Commissioner.
This action was initiated by the plaintiff brothers, Paul and Marvin Saville, against Limuel Bradshaw and his wife as a suit to quiet the title to a lot in Morehouse. The plaintiffs alleged that by reason of thirty-one years' adverse possession they were the fee simple owners of the lot and that the defendant and his wife claimed some interest in it by reason of a sheriff's deed for delinquent taxes for the year 1934. The defendants filed an answer in which they asserted fee simple ownership by reason of the tax deed. They also filed a counterclaim in which they sought an order requiring the plaintiffs to vacate the premises and damages of $1,000. The trial court entered judgment against the plaintiffs on their petition and in favor of the defendants on their counterclaim and the plaintiffs have appealed.
The following are the circumstances relied on by the plaintiffs as establishing as a matter of law adverse possession for at least ten years and consequently fee simple title to the lot as against the defendants' tax deed. In September 1928 the plaintiffs' father, Harley Saville, purchased the lot from Dan Baker, 'he did pay it out at so much, and paid it every two weeks * * * and I think it was five dollars.' In any event, Baker gave Mr. Saville a warranty deed to the lot and the Savilles and their children moved onto the property and lived there continuously until the father and mother died in 1956. Paul Saville is now aged 52 years and Marvin is 48. They moved to the lot with their parents in 1928 and one or the other of them has lived there since 1956. In 1928 there was a two-room house on the lot and a beehive factory building, the house burned in 1930 and the Savilles moved into the factory building. Paul tore the building down in 1957 and has built a four-room house on the lot which he says is of the value of $1,500. Paul's title to the lot, in addition to his interest as a surviving son, consists of quitclaim deeds from three of his sisters and brothers. Marvin has no deed, he claims 'a half * * * as an heir' of his father and mother. The plaintiffs' father and mother paid the taxes on the lot until 1934 but since that date the Savilles have paid no taxes, the plaintiffs say that they offered to pay the taxes but 'they' refused to accept them. Since 1934 the respondents Bradshaw have paid the taxes and neither Paul nor Marvin have said anything to Mr. Bradshaw about it. Marvin said, 'I couldn't get that close to him, and I thought he might be a good friend to pay my taxes like that, and I sure appreciated it.' Both Paul and Marvin say that they did not know that the land sold for taxes in 1934. They have paid no rent and claim that Bradshaw has never been on the premises and has made no improvements. They do concede that in June 1956 Bradshaw gave them written notice to vacate the premises and that thereafter Paul built the four-room house.
In these circumstances the appellants say that Therefore the appellants conclude that 'When defendant bought this lot for taxes in 1934, he took subject to the title of plaintiffs' father who was in open, notorious and adverse possession of the lot when record title at the time of the Tax Sale was in another.'
The respondent, Limuel Bradshaw, to show that the Savilles' occupancy of the lot was permissive and not adverse testified that he bought this particular lot along with other lots at a tax sale in 1934 and then he said, 'his father and mother (Paul Saville's) were living there and pretty old, and they didn't stay at home too much, the kids didn't. * * * they didn't have any system of Relief at that time and they were pretty old and I just told them they could go ahead and stay there as long as they lived and didn't have to worry and that is why the old man and woman stayed there.' Later he said that he didn't do too much to the lot 'because I promised them that place and let them live there, and I didn't disturb it * * *.' Appellants' counsel objected to these statements and this testimony: 'We object to that as it is hearsay and objectionable, for that reason, and it is a violation of the Dead Man's Statute and having told the deceased, Harley Saville, and would be a self-serving declaration, and we object to it on those...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Norman v. Durham, 49545
...of the witnesses testifying. Supreme Court Rule 73.01(d), V.A.M.R.; Faire v. Burke, 363 Mo. 562, 252 S.W.2d 289, 290 ; Saville v. Bradshaw, Mo., 359 S.W.2d 676, 678 The evidence shows that immediately after the agreement was executed, second parties by Mr. Norman proceeded to have the entir......
-
Household Finance Co., Inc. v. Watson, 9686
...the burden of proof and the indicated presumptions may or may not result in assumptions plainly contrary to the fact.' Saville v. Bradshaw, 359 S.W.2d 676, 679 (Mo.1962). 'In a situation such as the present one, where it is impossible to render a final judgment because the principal issue w......
-
Pollard v. Swenson
...the cause will be remanded for further proceedings at which evidence may be heard. V.A.M.R., Civil Rules 73.01 (d), 83.13; Saville v. Bradshaw, Mo.Sup., 359 S.W.2d 676; In re M_ _ P_ _ S_ _, Mo.App., 342 S.W.2d 277; Buchanan v. Cabiness, 240 Mo.App. 829, 221 S.W.2d 849. And, after evidence ......
-
Capoferri v. Day, 9285
...Swan v. Shelton, 469 S.W.2d 943, 951(6) (Mo.App.1971); In re I.M.J., 428 S.W.2d 18, 22(5) (Mo.App.1968). See also Saville v. Bradshaw, 359 S.W.2d 676, 678--679(2) (Mo. 1962); Farrar v. Moore, 416 S.W.2d 711, 714--715(8) (Mo.App.1967); State ex rel. State Highway Comm'n v. Hill, 373 S.W.2d 6......