Skillman v. Clardy

Decision Date03 March 1914
Docket NumberNo. 16,559.,16,559.
Citation256 Mo. 297,165 S.W. 1050
PartiesSKILLMAN et al. v. CLARDY.
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

Appeal from Circuit Court, Butler County; J. C. Sheppard, Judge.

Action by Mary Cornelia Skillman and others against Martin L. Clardy. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.

S. C. Rogers, of St. Louis, and C. M. Skillman, for appellants. N. A. Mozley, of Bloomfield, for respondent.

LAMM, J.

From a judgment of the Butler circuit court in favor of defendant, quieting title in him to a quarter section of land, plaintiffs appeal.

The petition reads: "Plaintiffs state that Samuel R. Hamilton died intestate in the year 1875, seised in fee of the real estate hereinafter described; that the plaintiffs are the sole surviving and legal heirs of Samuel R. Hamilton, deceased; and that by inheritance, as such legal heirs of Samuel R. Hamilton, deceased, they are the owners, in fee simple, and claim that title to the following real estate, lying, being, and situate in the county of Stoddard, in the state of Missouri, to wit, the northwest quarter of section 3, township 23 north, of range 12 east, containing 160 acres, more or less. Plaintiffs further state and aver that the said real estate is not in the actual possession of any person or persons whatsoever, but is wild and uncultivated timber land; that the defendant claims some title, estate, or interest in and to said premises, the nature and character of which claim is unknown to plaintiffs, and cannot be described herein, except that said claim is adverse and prejudicial to these plaintiffs. Wherefore, the premises considered, the plaintiffs ask the court to try, ascertain, and determine the estate, title, and interest of the plaintiffs and the defendant herein, respectively, in and to the real estate aforesaid, and to define and adjudge, by its judgment or decree, the title, estate, and interest of the parties, plaintiff and defendant, herein, severally, in and to the aforementioned premises, according to the statute in such cases made and provided, and for the costs in this behalf expended." Admitting that defendant claims some interest and title, and averring that his title is in fee simple, the answer goes on to plead estoppel generally through laches, and then turns the tables on plaintiffs by alleging that defendant is the owner in fee simple of the real estate in controversy, and that plaintiffs claim some right or interest therein, the precise character of which defendant says he does not know, except that such pretended claim is adverse to him, wherefore his prayer (mutatis mutandis) is the same as plaintiffs'. The reply was a general denial.

The cause was treated, nisi, as in equity. It was stipulated in open court that one Samuel B. Hamilton is the common source of title. The following sufficiently outlines the case, to wit: One Samuel R. Hamilton, a citizen of Ohio, owned the land and died intestate in 1876, leaving Samuel B. his only son and heir and Abigail Maria his widow. Abigail Maria died in 1888, her dower estate for life falling in at that event. The title became vested in Samuel B. by descent cast on the death of his father. Samuel B. died in 1899, intestate, leaving surviving him three children; his wife, Rebecca, having died in 1894. Those children (and his only heirs) were Mary Cornelia, Anna Eliza, and Hannah Maria, two of whom married, and the three (with the husbands of those married) are plaintiffs in the instant case. Their title, if any, is by descent cast on them as heirs of Samuel B. There is no question of the statute of limitations, the land being wild. In 1890 a judgment was rendered against the land for taxes of 1887 and 1888 in a suit then pending in the Stoddard circuit court in favor of the collector of that county against "Samuel B. Hamilton and Rebecca Hamilton, his wife, Abigail Hamilton, widow of Samuel R. Hamilton, deceased, and Andrew Hamilton, defendants." Andrew Hamilton (a collateral kinsman) had no title at any time, and was dead at the time suit was brought. On that judgment execution issued in January, 1891, and in March of that year a sale was made under the sheriff's hammer to Ligon...

To continue reading

Request your trial
33 cases
  • Gaty v. United Rys. Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • April 28, 1923
    ... ... W. 255; Johnson v. Hutchinson, 81 Mo. App. 299; Moon v. Railroad, 83 Mo. App. 458; Curtis v. Sexton, 252 Mo. 221, 159 S. W. 512; Skillman v. Clardy, 256 Mo. loc. cit. 311, 165 S. W. 1050; Keaton v. Hamilton, 264 Mo. 564, 175 S W. 967; Comfort v. Ballingal, 134 Mo. 281, 35 S. W. 609) ... ...
  • State ex rel. Lashly v. Becker
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • December 7, 1921
    ...with sound reasons for it. This court frequently has approved the rule. [Greene Co. v. Lydy, 263 Mo. 77, 172 S.W. 376; Skillman v. Clardy, 256 Mo. 297, 165 S.W. 1050; Pocoke v. Peterson, 256 Mo. 501, 165 S.W. Bender v. Weber, 250 Mo. 551, 157 S.W. 570; Lorenzen v. Railroad, 249 Mo. 182, 155......
  • Wilcox v. Phillips
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • July 14, 1914
    ... ... the fact that Abbie D. Wilcox was an owner. We so held on a ... similar state of ... [169 S.W. 61] ... facts in a late case. [Skillman v. Clardy, 256 Mo. 297, 165 ... S.W. 1050.] So, the execution made a similar recital, the ... levy was on her interest, the advertisement of the ... ...
  • Curry v. Crull
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • May 3, 1938
    ... ... 631; Smith v ... Black, 231 Mo. 281; Sec. 1520, R. S. 1929; Huff v ... Laclede Land & Imp. Co., 157 Mo. 65; Stillman v ... Clardy, 256 Mo. 297; Wolf v. Schulz Folding Box ... Co., 44 S.W.2d 866. (2) There was no error on the part ... of the court in refusing to sustain ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT