Schneider v. Schneider

• Decision Date: 19 July 1920
• Citation: 224 S.W. 1,284 Mo. 314
• Parties: MAGDALENA SCHNEIDER, Administratrix of Estate and Widow of MARTIN SCHNEIDER, and LENA SEIDNER et al. v. ALEX. SCHNEIDER et al., Appellants
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

224 S.W. 1

284 Mo. 314

MAGDALENA SCHNEIDER, Administratrix of Estate and Widow of MARTIN SCHNEIDER, and LENA SEIDNER et al. v. ALEX. SCHNEIDER et al., Appellants

Supreme Court of Missouri, First Division

July 19, 1920

Appeal from Franklin Circuit Court. -- Hon. R. A. Breuer, Judge.

Reversed and remanded (with directions).

Jesse H. Schaper and Rosenberger & Dowell for appellants.

(1) There is no substantial evidence in the case to support the finding of the trial court that defendants acquired no title to tract of land No. 2 under patent from Franklin County, and therefore the court erred in so doing. (a) Under the Laws of 1895 granting river bed lands to counties in which they are located, for school purposes, the county acquires title to lands formed, not only by the recession and abandonment of the waters of the Missouri River, or by the formation of islands in the waters thereof, but also to all accretions thereto formed, even though the water margin thereof unites with the main shore. Moore v. Farmer, 156 Mo. 33; R S. 1909, sec. 8032. (b) The owner of land on the Missouri River is not entitled to land formed by the river depositing sand on its bed forming an island and afterwards connecting with the shore by the receding of the intervening river, but only to such land as may be added to the original grant by the gradual process of accretion or reliction to his shore line. Benson v. Morrow, 61 Mo. 345; Cooley v Golden, 117 Mo. 33; Perkins v. Adams, 132 Mo 131; Hahn v. Dawson, 134 Mo. 581; Vogelsmeier v. Prendergast, 137 Mo. 271; Moore v. Farmer, 156 Mo. 33. (2) There is no substantial evidence in the case to support the finding of the trial court that plaintiffs were not estopped from claiming tract of land No. 2, and therefore the court erred in so doing. (a) If Martin Schneider, Sr., was living and had instituted this suit, and was prosecuting the same, unquestionably he would be estopped from claiming title to tract No. 2 in controversy. Lumber Co. v. Craig, 248 Mo. 319; Rice v. Bunce's Administrator, 49 Mo. 231; Skinner v. Stouse, 4 Mo. 93; Austin v. Loring, 63 Mo. 19; Raley v. Williams, 73 Mo. 310; Manning v. Coal Company, 181 Mo. 376; Stevenson v. Saline County, 65 Mo. 425. (b) Plaintiffs are likewise estopped. Herman on Estoppel, paragraphs 45 and 46; Thistle v. Buford, 50 Mo. 278. (c) The activity of equity powers cannot be successfully invoked when a party has slept on his rights and induced others to act on the confident belief that he has abandoned them. Moreman v. Talbot, 55 Mo. 395; Landrum v. Bank, 63 Mo. 48; Schradski v. Allbright, 93 Mo. 42. (d) Where one obtained title in good faith and expended a specified sum in its procurement equity will not interfere unless the rightful claimant pays or tenders the amount expended. Craven v. Moore, 61 Mo. 178. (3) The court erred in making an equitable finding as to tract of land No. 2 when no such issue had been raised by the pleadings. (a) There is nothing in the petition or answer which gives this proceeding an equitable character. The rules applicable in ordinary actions at law, therefore, govern the case in this court. Franke v. Franke, 213 S.W. 38; Bacon v. Theiss, 208 S.W. 254; Thompson v. Stillwell, 253 Mo. 89; Lee v. Conran, 213 Mo. 404.

Robert Walker for respondents.

(1) An owner of land on the Missouri River, in taking the risk of having his land or any part thereof (as happened to Martin Schneider and his grantors) washed away, is entitled in like manner to retain and hold whatever may be added to his land. Benson v. Morrow, 61 Mo. 350; Smith v. St. Louis Public Schools, 30 Mo. 300; Frank v. Goddin, 193 Mo. 390. (2) And the doctrine of additions, to lands on a navigable river, by accretion or reliction, is firmly established in this State. St. Louis v. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co., 114 Mo. 13; Buse v. Russell, 86 Mo. 209; Crandall v. Allen, 118 Mo. 403; Naylor v. Cox, 114 Mo. 232; Frank v. Goddin, 193 Mo. 390. (3) According to the testimony of the only witnesses who knew the history of the formation of the land designated as "Tract of Land No. 2" from the beginning, and other witnesses, the said land was formed by way of addition out from the main shore, and without a nucleus forming out in the river and working toward the shore. And there being no testimony to the contrary, Martin Schneider, through the deeds executed to him by Meyer and Rohlfing, who held under mesne conveyances from the Government, was the owner of said lands when he died. McBain v. Johnson, 155 Mo. 191; Delassus v. Flaherty, 164 Mo. 361; Cooley v. Golden, 117 Mo. 33; Frank v. Goddin, 193 Mo. 390. (4) Defendants when taking the patent from Franklin County were equally conversant with everything pertaining to the formation of said land and the nature thereof, as the father was. They could not be deceived by anything their father did or said concerning the same. 11 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law (2 Ed.), p. 425; Estis v. Jackson, 111 N.C. 145; Bales v. Perry, 97 Mo. 263; Blodgett v. Perry, 97 Mo. 263; Freeland v. Williamson, 220 Mo. 217. (5) Defendants never having even talked with their mother concerning their taking a patent from Franklin County, and paying the county $ 1391.37 for the claim made by the county, could not in entire ignorance of their mother as to what they were doing, defeat the rights of the mother as wife of their father; and the element of an estoppel is entirely lacking if the father otherwise was the owner of the land. Northrup v. Colter, 150 Mo.App. 639; Konta v. St. Louis Stock Exchange, 180 Mo. 26. (6) And if the father could not defeat the rights of the mother by causing his three sons to expend $ 1400 in settling claim made to land owned by him, otherwise worth $ 10,000 as testified on the trial, the sister of defendants could not be deprived of her rights either as daughter of the father. A deed void for one purpose is void for every other purpose. State v. Casteel, 110 Ind. 182. (7) Defendants when taking the patent from the county could not have expected and did not expect to buy anything more than the county's claim, and they paid $ 1391.37 for this. For this outlay, they have been protected in the trial court's decree, in having a lien for such expenditure adjudged against Tract of Land No. 2.

GRAVES J. Woodson, J., absent.

OPINION

GRAVES, J.

From appellants' brief we borrow an outline of the issues. We have stricken out unnecessary words, and added words and sentences where we deemed it advisable. The statement thus modified follows:

"This is an action under Section 2535, Revised Statutes 1909, to determine and quiet title to lands described in the petition of plaintiffs situated in Franklin County, Missouri.

"One Martin Schneider died intestate. He left surviving him a widow, the plaintiff, Magdalena Schneider, and the following named children and heirs at law, to-wit: A daughter, the plaintiff, Lena Seidner, and the following named sons, the defendants, namely, Alex. Schneider, Frank Schneider and Martin Schneider, Jr.

"The plaintiffs in their petition alleged that Martin Schneider Sr., died seized and possessed of certain real estate situated in Franklin County, Missouri, being part of Sections 8 and 9 south of a slough, with all accretions formed thereto on the east side in said section till to the Missouri River, and a part of Section 16, together with all accretions formed thereto to the east till to the Missouri River, embracing all land on the north side of the center line running east and west through said Section 16, and continuing east through said Section 15 in the same manner, all in Township 45, Range 3 west.

"The plaintiffs further alleged in their petition that Martin Schneider, Sr., died leaving debts unpaid to a considerable amount; that the plaintiff Magdalena Schneider is the duly and legally appointed and qualified and acting administratrix of the estate, and that it will be necessary in order to pay the debts of the estate to sell a part of the real estate of the decedent.

"The plaintiffs in their petition claimed that Magdalena Schneider, as widow, has an interest in said real estate, and that subject to the payment of debts the plaintiff Lena Seidner and the three defendants owned the real estate in plaintiffs' petition described, in equal parts.

"A plat of the lands was introduced in evidence, as follows:

[SEE ILLUSTRATION IN ORIGINAL]

"This clearly shows the lay of the land. All of the lands described in plaintiffs' petition are south of the slough shown on the plat above referred to, the general direction of the slough being from west to east, and the lands are also all west of the Missouri River, as shown on the aforesaid plat, the course of the river being from the northwest to the southeast.

"By a reference to the judgment and decree rendered by the trial court, it will be noted that the trial court in describing the lands as shown on the aforesaid plat and situated north of the center line of Section 16, and west of the Missouri River, and south and east of the two sloughs shown on the plat, denominated said tract of land as tract No. 3.

"The lands shown on the plat above referred to as being situated north of the center-section line of Section 16 and south and west of the two sloughs shown on the plat, and east of the line marked 'Old High Bank,' were designated and denominated by the court as tract of land No. 2, and all those lands described in plaintiffs' petition lying west of the line marked 'Old High Bank,' on the plat hereinabove referred to, were designated and denominated by the court as tract of land No. 1. For convenience we have marked the tract numbers on the plat. The defendants in their amended answer as to tract of land No. 1, admitted the relationship of the parties as alleged in plaintiffs'...