Stark v. Kirchgraber
Decision Date | 21 February 1905 |
Citation | 85 S.W. 868,186 Mo. 633 |
Parties | STARK et al. v. KIRCHGRABER. |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Greene County; Jas. T. Neville, Judge.
Action to quiet title by Maud L. Stark and others against Lizzie Kirchgraber. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
This cause is here upon appeal from the Greene county circuit court. On the 24th day of February, A. D. 1901, the respondents, as plaintiffs, filed in the circuit court of Greene county, Mo., their petition in the above-entitled cause, which said petition, omitting caption and style of case, is as follows:
To this petition the following answer was filed: "Now comes the defendant in the above-styled cause, and by leave of court for her amended answer to plaintiffs' petition admits that she claims an interest in the land therein described, to wit, the fee-simple title, and further avers and states that she is the owner of the fee-simple title in said land; that she is in possession thereof, and denies each and every other allegation therein contained."
Upon the trial of this cause it was admitted that Sandy Jarrett was the common source of title. The facts as shown by the testimony, including the documentary evidence introduced, are as follows:
The record is silent as to the date of grant of letters of administration on the estate of Hulda Jarrett, deceased; but it does appear that W. H. Pipkin was the former administrator of said estate, and turned over $27.75 to said Jarrett, husband of the deceased, by order of the probate court. This was the last heard of that administration, so far as the record discloses, until this appellant, who is neither an heir nor a creditor of said estate, commenced the proceedings in the probate court to sell the real estate. The first step taken in the probate court to sell this real estate was by this respondent. She gave the following notice to the administrator of the estate of Hulda Jarrett, deceased:
After the service of such notice upon the administrator, the appellant in this cause presented to the probate court the following petition:
Upon the foregoing petition, the probate court made the following order:
The administrator, upon being notified that appellant would make application to the probate court for the sale of this land in pursuance of section 151, Rev. St. 1899, filed with the clerk of the court accounts, lists, and inventories, as provided by that section, and the order of sale was made upon the application of the respondent, in pursuance of the provisions of section 150, Rev. St. 1899, and the land was sold, and the respondent became the purchaser. Report of sale was made and...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bopst v. Williams
...be attacked collaterally, for a judgment so rendered is void, a nullity. Freeman on Judgments (3 Ed.), p. 112, secs. 117, 120. Stark v. Kirchgraber, 186 Mo. 633; Hutchison Shelby, 133 Mo. 400; Cloud v. Inhabitants of Pierce City, 86 Mo. 356; Adams v. Cowels, 95 Mo. 501; Davis v. Montgomery,......
-
United Cemeteries Co. v. Strother
...present; and, third, the point decided must be, in substance and effect, within the issue." [Stark v. Kirchgraber, 186 Mo. 633, l. c. 645, 85 S.W. 868; Gray v. Clements, 286 Mo. 100, l. c. 107, 227 111, l. c. 113; Aetna Insurance Company v. R. E. O'Malley, H. P. Lauf, L. H. Cook and Gilbert......
-
Aetna Ins. Co. v. O'Malley
...second, the proper parties must be present; and, third, the point decided must be, in substance and effect, within the issue." [Stark v. Kirchgraber, 186 Mo. 633, c. 645, 85 S.W. 868; Gray v. Clements, 286 Mo. 100, l. c. 107, 227 S.W. 111, l. c. 113.] Tested by these rules, the trial court ......
-
Charles v. White
... ... Jersey was approved and followed by this court in Hope v ... Blair, 105 Mo. 85, 16 S.W. 595; and in the more recent ... case of Stark v. Kirchgraber, 186 Mo. 633, 85 S.W ... 868, Munday v. Vail, supra, was again approved and followed ... In Reynolds v. Stockton, 140 U.S. 254, ... ...