Sims v. Field
| Decision Date | 31 October 1877 |
| Citation | 66 Mo. 111 |
| Parties | SIMS v. FIELD, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Audrain Circuit Court.--HON. G. PORTER, Judge.E. M. Crozier for appellant.
John M. Gordon for respondent.
This was a suit instituted in the circuit court of Audrain county to recover damages growing out of the alleged removal of a division fence between the lands of plaintiff and defendant. The answer denies the allegation of the petition as to the existence of any such fence, and also that plaintiff sustained any damage by reason of the removal of the same.
The case was tried by the court without the intervention of a jury, and judgment for one hundred dollars was rendered for plaintiff, from which defendant has appealed. The principal ground relied upon for a reversal of the judgment was the action of the court in refusing four instructions asked by defendant, two of which are as follows:
No. 1. No agreement made by Vanhorn with Leeper constituting a part of the fence on the lands conveyed by the deed of trust of Evans and Vanhorn to James Ferguson, a partition fence, could bind the said Ferguson, or a purchaser, under said deed of trust.
No. 2. After Evans and Vanhorn conveyed the land to Ferguson, on which the fence alleged to have been broken is situate, no agreement of said Vanhorn in regard to the title or use of said fence could in any way affect the right of defendant to remove said fence.
The evidence adduced on the trial tended to show that in 1871, one Leeper owned a tract of land adjoining a tract occupied by one Vanhorn and Evans; that on the land of Vanhorn and Evans, about sixty feet from the line dividing the land occupied by them, there was a string of fence about one-quarter of a mile in length; that Vanhorn agreed that if Leeper would build a fence upon his own land parallel to the line dividing their lands, he might join to the fence of Vanhorn and Evans; that in 1867 Vanhorn and Evans conveyed to one Ferguson, by deed of trust, the land upon which the fence alleged to have been broken and carried away was situate; that in 1872, the land was sold under said deed of trust, and defendant Field became the purchaser, and took possession of the same under his purchase in the following December, and without knowledge or notice of the agreement between Leeper and Vanhorn, whereby Leeper was permitted to join his fence to the fence of Vanhorn, removed the fence on the land so bought in March, 1873; that, in consequence of such removal,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sims v. Field
...Circuit Court, HON. ELIJAH ROBINSON, Judge. Reversed. Statement of case by the court. This case has been twice before the Supreme Court. 66 Mo. 111; Mo. 139. The original petition was as follows: " Plaintiff states that plaintiff was, on the ______day of March, 1873, the owner of and in pos......
-
The St. Joseph Union Depot Co. v. The Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Company
...of any person, or corporation, who might be a bidder. Craig v. Zimmerman, 87 Mo. 475; Plum v. Studebaker Bros. & Co., 89 Mo. 162; Sims v. Field, 66 Mo. 111; Funkhouser v. Lay, 78 Mo. 458; Stewart Perkins, 110 Mo. 660; McShane v. Moberly, 79 Mo. 41. Spencer & Mosman for respondent. (1) The d......
-
Stewart v. Perkins
...mortgage lien (Plum v. Mfg. Co., 89 Mo. 162, 1 S.W. 217; Funkhouser v. Lay, 78 Mo. 458; Heirs of Mullanphy v. Simpson, 4 Mo. 319; Sims v. Field, 66 Mo. 111; Benseick Cook, ante, p. 173); and no different result can logically follow and attend the enforcement of a prior judgment lien. In McS......
-
Stewart v. Perkins
...lien, — Plum v. Manufacturing Co., 89 Mo. 162, 1 S. W. Rep. 217; Funkhouser v. Lay, 78 Mo. 458; Mullanphy v. Simpson, 4 Mo. 319; Sims v. Field, 66 Mo. 111; Bensieck v. Cook, 19 S. W. Rep. 642, (decided at the present term;) and no different result can logically follow and attend the enforce......