Van Eman v. Walker
| Decision Date | 31 October 1870 |
| Citation | 47 Mo. 169 |
| Parties | GEORGE VAN EMAN et al., Appellants, v. ALEX. H. WALKER et al., Respondents. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Fourth District Court.
J. G. Blair, for appellants.
Dryden, Lindley & Dryden, for respondents.
This is an action of forcible entry and detainer. The plaintiffs recovered a judgment in the Circuit Court, which the District Court reversed, and the plaintiffs now bring the case here by appeal.
That the defendants entered into and took and held possession of the premises sued for (a church edifice) against the will of the plaintiffs, does not appear to have been a subject of much controversy; nor is it disputed that the defendants, immediately after taking such possession, offered to share the possession with the plaintiffs, thus giving the plaintiffs an opportunity to hold and enjoy the property in common with the defendants. The point mainly contested had reference to the right of the plaintiffs to hold and occupy the church edifice and grounds in exclusion of the defendants. Considerable evidence was given on that subject. It is evident, however, from repeated decisions of this court, that the question of right was wholly foreign to the case. (Krevet v. Meyer, 24 Mo. 107; Beeler v. Cardwell, 33 Mo. 84; and see the subsequent decisions.)
The plaintiffs, at the trial, nevertheless assumed the unnecessary burden of showing their right as well as the fact of their possession. This the defendants objected to, as also to the instructions founded upon the irrelevant proofs in relation to the supposed right. The evidence objected to should have been excluded, and the instructions founded upon it should have been refused. But the opposite course was taken. Were the defendants injured thereby? It is not perceived how it could well have had that effect under the instruction given by the court.
At the instance of the defendants the court instructed the jury as follows: “Unless the plaintiffs show to the satisfaction of the jury that they were, on the 4th day of June, 1867, in the exclusive possession of the property in question, and that their possession was lawful; that the defendants entered into and detained the same from them, and that the entry and detainer were unlawful, they can not recover, and the verdict should be for the defendants.”
This instruction covers the whole case, and is as favorable to the defendants as they had any right to demand. It virtually told the jury that, however they might find the facts bearing on the question of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Underwood v. City of Caruthersville
...... were before the entry. Stewart v. Miles, 105 Mo.App. 242; Kravet v. Meyer, 24 Mo. 107; Robinson v. Walker, Ex'r of Walker, 50 Mo. 19; Sitton v. Sapp, 62 Mo.App. 197; Craig v. Donnely, 28. Mo.App. 342; Redman v. Perkins, 122 Mo.App. 168. (3). Actual, ......
-
Metropolitan Land Co. v. Manning
...... It was not necessary that defendant have some one always in. the park in order to hold possession. Krevet v. Meyer, 24 Mo. 107; Van Eman v. Walker, 47 Mo. 169; Harris v. Turner, 46 Mo. 438; Meriwether v. Howe, 48 Mo.App. 148. (2) Mr. Manning faithfully kept. all the conditions ......
-
Craig v. Donnelly
...... Haywood v. Miller, 3 Hill 90; Wood's Landlord & Ten., sec. 20, p. 53; Rex v. Stock, 2 Taunt. 339,. 342; State ex rel. v. Walker, 88 Mo. 279. In such a. case the master does not " " enter" upon the. servant's " possession," for it was the. master's own possession and no " ......
-
Purcell v. Merrick
...possession, he had no right to forcibly dispossess plaintiff. [Craig v. Donnelly, 28 Mo.App. 342; Krevet v. Meyer, 24 Mo. 107; Van Eman v. Walker, 47 Mo. 169; v. Cardwell, 33 Mo. 84, 85; Dilworth v. Fee, 52 Mo. 130, 131.] The only issue of fact in the case was whether the entry of defendant......