Starr v. Kisner
| Decision Date | 31 March 1909 |
| Citation | 219 Mo. 64,117 S.W. 1129 |
| Parties | STARR et al. v. KISNER et al. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Bates County; C. A. Denton, Judge.
Action by Annie R. Starr and another against Margaret S. Kisner and another. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.
Silvers & Silvers, for appellants. Thos. J. Smith, for respondents.
The facts of this case are in the main like those in the case of Annie R. Starr et al. v. John F. Bartz et al. (No. 13,565) 117 S. W. 1125, the opinion in which is just now delivered. The only points of difference between this case and that are as follows:
The petition is copied in full in the abstract, and it has not the defect noted in that petition. It is in due form as a petition for partition of land. The land involved is the 90-acre tract mentioned in the opinion in the Bartz Case as having been deeded by Dr. Lee to his daughter, Mrs. Kisner. The plaintiffs are the same as in the Bartz Case. The defendants are Mrs. Kisner and Joel Lee. It is a suit, therefore, between the four children of Mrs. Lee, deceased. Mrs. Kisner has never sold her interest in the 90 acres, but has continued to occupy it, claiming it as her own, ever since it was deeded to her by her father in 1887. She was at that date about 15 years old. The pleas of the statute of limitations and estoppel are the same as in the Bartz Case. The court stated the account, involving the value of the improvements and taxes paid against the rents and profits, and found the balance in Mrs. Kisner's favor on that accounting to be $158.50. The decree was that each of the plaintiffs was entitled to a fourth of the land and Mrs. Kisner the remaining half, Joel not claiming any part; that the land be sold for partition; that out of the proceeds, after paying costs, Mrs. Kisner be paid $158.50, and what remained was to be divided, one-fourth to each of the plaintiffs and the balance to Mrs. Kisner. From that decree Mrs. Kisner has prosecuted this appeal.
The law applicable to the facts of this case is the same as that stated in the opinion in the Bartz Case as applicable there; and for the reasons stated in that opinion the judgment in this case must be affirmed. It is so ordered. All concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Crismond v. Kendrick
...such knowledge to appellants. 21 C.J. 1154, sec. 157; Laughlin v. Wells, 283 S.W. 990; Wood v. Oil & Refining Co., 274 S.W. 894; Starr v. Kisner, 219 Mo. 64; Starr v. Bartz, 219 Mo. 47. (b) There is no evidence of a purpose on the part of Mrs. Spratt to mislead. There is positive evidence o......
-
Starr v. Bartz
... ... The land in question lies in Bates county. It, with other lands, was owned in his lifetime by Samuel Grosshart, who was the grandfather of the plaintiffs, Annie and Dennie Starr, and of the defendant Margaret Kisner. Grosshart died intestate in 1862, leaving six children, four sons and two daughters. One of the daughters, Mildred, the wife of Dr. D. L. Lee, died intestate in 1882, leaving her husband, Dr. Lee, and four children, Annie Starr, Dennie Starr, Margaret Kisner, and Joel Lee. At the time of her ... ...
-
McNatt v. The Maxwell Investment Co.
...by reason of quit claim deed from the said President and Fellows of Middlebury College. Starr v. Barts, 219 Mo. 47, 117 S.W. 1125; Starr v. Kisner, 219 Mo. 64; Shelton v. Horrell, 232 Mo. 358, 134 S.W. 988. The courts will presume that the knowledge that the Maxwell Investment Company had o......