St. Louis Union Trust Co. v. Hill

• Decision Date: 19 June 1920
• Docket Number: No. 23282.,23282.
• Citation: 283 Mo. 278,223 S.W. 434
• Parties: ST. LOWS UNION TRUST CO. v. HILL.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

223 S.W. 434

283 Mo. 278

ST. LOWS UNION TRUST CO. v. HILL.

No. 23282.

Supreme Court of Missouri, in Banc.

June 19, 1920.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Pemiscot County; Sterling H. McCarty, Judge.

Suit by the St. Louis Union Trust Company against James A. Hill. From judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

The plaintiff brought suit, under the provisions of section 2535, Revised Statutes of Missouri 1909, to ascertain and determine the title to certain lands in Pemiscot county, asserting in its petition that the defendant claimed some interest adverse to plaintiff's title, and praying that the court ascertain and determine the estates of plaintiff and defendant, respectively, therein. To this petition the defendant filed an answer, in which he disclaimed title to all of the lands described in the petition, except the following portions:

"Beginning at the center of fractional sections 17 and 18, township 20 north, range 12 east, on the left and east banks of Little river and meander south on the left bank as follows: South 28 degrees west 1,060 feet to the corner of fractional sections 18 and 19, of township 20 north, of range 12 east; thence south 521 feet; thence south 15 degrees west 602 feet; thence south 27 degrees east 251 feet; thence east 535 feet to the section line between sections 19 and 20, of township 20 north, range 12 east; thence north 2,244 feet to the point of beginning of this survey and containing 21.85 acres, being 3.20 acres of the land sued for herein."

As to the lands above described, defendant asserted title in himself, and joined in the prayer of the petition that the court ascertain and determine the title of the parties. A reply was filed, and upon a hearing of the cause the court rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff. The defendant has duly appealed.

The plaintiff's evidence consisted of the usual documents divesting title from the United States, first to the state of Missouri, thence to the county of Pemiscot, and thence to the plaintiff. Defendant's evidence consisted of a deed from one Story and wife to William J. Hill and the defendant, and from William J. Hill to the defendant, and defendant also introduced parol evidence tending to show title in himself under the statute of limitations. What title Story had to the lands in question, or how, when, or from whom he obtained his title, if any, does not appear.

Upon the conclusion of the evidence, the cause was submitted to the court for judgment. The defendant did not ask for any declarations of law or findings of fact, and none were given. The case was tried without the intervention of a jury. A motion for new trial was "filed and overruled, and the case is now before us upon the record above " indicated. No further facts need be stated.

Ward & Reeves, of Caruthersville, for appellant.

C. G. Shepard, of Caruthersville, and Barclay & Wallace, of St. Louis, for respondent.

WILLIAMSON, J. (after stating the facts as above).

It will be observed from the statement of facts that appellant relied in part upon the statute of limitations to sustain his claim to the lands in question, and that he introduced evidence tending to show that he had been in possession of the lands above described a sufficient length of time for possession to have ripened into title. It will also be observed that respondent introduced no evidence to the contrary. The case was a law case, tried to the court without the aid of a jury, as stated, no declarations of law or findings of fact were asked by appellant and none were given.

Respondent now contends that the finding of the trial court upon the questions of fact involved precludes a review of the evidence by this court, and that the judgment must for that reason be affirmed. This contention must be sustained upon the authority of a long line of cases, beginning with Bryan v. Wear, 4 Mo. 106, and continuing down to the case of State ex rel. v. Sturgis, 276 Mo. 559, loc. cit. 570, 208 S. W. 458. Among many cases maintaining this doctrine, the following may be cited: Gannon v. Gas Co., 145 Mo. 502, loc. cit. 515, 46 S. W. 968, 47 S. W. 907, 43 L. R. A. 505; Johnson v. Grayson, 230 Mo. 380, loc. cit. 394, 130 S. W. 673; Printz v. Miller, 233 Mo. 47, loc. cit. 49, 135 S. W. 19; St. Louis v. Railroad, 248 Mo. 10,...