Sires v. Clark
| Decision Date | 29 June 1908 |
| Citation | 112 S.W. 526,132 Mo.App. 537 |
| Parties | COLUMBUS SIRES, Respondent, v. W. A. CLARK et al., Appellants |
| Court | Kansas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Grundy Circuit Court.--Hon. George W. Wanamaker, Judge.
AFFIRMED.
Judgment affirmed.
Platt Hubbell and George Hubbell for appellants.
(1) Knowledge of Sires precludes recovery in this cause. Overton v. Meggs, 105 S.W. 208; Brown v Baldwin, 121 Mo. 115. (2) Sires is not entitled to appropriate the defendant's property by reason of his exercise of his own rights.
A. G Knight and E. M. Harber, for respondents, filed argument.
This action was begun and prosecuted to recover the value of certain improvements made on certain lands in Grundy county, being eight-tenths of a forty-acre tract. The judgment in the trial court was for the plaintiff for $ 500, and the defendants prosecute this appeal. The case is a simple one involving questions which have been frequently determined by the Supreme and appellate courts of the State, but it has been so filled in with extraneous and unnecessary matter that it has been somewhat difficult to select out of the mass the points pertaining to the case.
Plaintiff was the occupant of the land in question (forty acres) for near thirty years, claiming to be the fee simple owner, and, as he insists, believing in good faith that he was such owner. Finally the true owners brought an action of ejectment against him and ousted him, recovering with the land itself damages and rents and profits. For a history of that case see Clark v. Sires, 193 Mo. 502, 92 S.W. 224.
One who believes himself to be the true owner of land, enters thereon and makes valuable permanent improvements, without notice of the claim of the true owner, may recover the value of the enhancement which such improvements give the land. The ordinary advance in the value of the land is no part of the measure. Nor is the cost of the improvements the measure, as they may have cost too much, or may not have been judicious. The measure is the addition in value the improvements have made to the land over and above what the value would have been had they not been made. For improvements of that character the ousted claimant may recover of the owner, provided he makes them without notice of the adverse claim. [Stump v. Hornback, 94 Mo. 26, 6 S.W. 356; Gallenkamp v. Westmeyer, 116 Mo.App. 680, 93 S.W. 816; Stump v. Hornbeck, 15 Mo.App. 367.]
The improvements for which judgment is sought consisted mainly in clearing the land of trees and brush and straightening a creek. There was evidence tending to show that the land, as it stood, was heavily covered with timber and brush and that it was worthless, for use, in that condition. That the clearing and grubbing brought it into a productive state and the enhanced value was between six and seven hundred dollars. The evidence does not leave room to doubt that plaintiff supposed himself to be the true owner of the fee simple title. He paid full value for the entire forty acres and received a warranty deed therefor, but as it turned out he only obtained title to two-tenths, leaving his claim confined to the eight-tenths. An examination of the record discloses that there was evidence tending to show that after plaintiff's purchase and during the period the improvements were being made, he did not have actual knowledge of the defendant's title, nor did he become possessed of sufficient information to put an ordinarily prudent man upon inquiry. Our consideration will therefore be directed to the instructions. If they are free from error materially affecting the merits of the case, we must affirm the judgment.
Those for the plaintiff conditioned his right to recover on his having entered into possession of the premises and made the improvements "in good faith, that is with an honest belief that they owned and had title thereto." That if he recovered, it should be the difference in the value of eight-tenths of said lands with said improvements and without said improvements, not however to exceed the reasonable value of the cost of said improvements and not to exceed $ 20 per acre or $ 640 for such improvements, and not to embrace, in aforesaid difference any value that may have been added to said land aside from said improvements.
On the question of notice they submitted his right to recover unless he had knowledge of the true state of the title or such information as would put an ordinarily prudent man on inquiry. And that although different persons may have upon different occasions expressed their opinions and beliefs that the Clark heirs had or would make some claim to the land and though this may have been a general report of the neighborhood, yet unless plainti...
To continue reading
Request your trial