Wall v. Shindler

• Decision Date: 31 January 1871
• Citation: 47 Mo. 282
• Parties: WILLIAM WALL et al., Plaintiffs in Error, v. WILLIAM SHINDLER et al., Defendants in Error.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

47 Mo. 282

WILLIAM WALL et al., Plaintiffs in Error,

v.WILLIAM SHINDLER et al., Defendants in Error.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

January Term, 1871.

Error to First District Court.

Phillips & Vest, with Allen & Thornton, for plaintiffs in error, insisted, among other propositions, that the acceptance of the quit-claim deed by defendants in error, in 1866, from Knox, was the recognition by them of a title in Knox, and precluded them from setting up an adverse possessory title. (Adams' Eject. 46-7, 56, and notes; 5 Johns. Ch. 353; 2 Hayes, 294; 12 Johns. 427, 430.)

F. P. Wright, for defendants in error.

CURRIER, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an ejectment for the west half of the southwest fourth of section 26, township 43, range 25. It appears that in 1850 various lands of one Thomas Knox were sold on execution in Henry county, and that Wm. M. Wall, the plaintiffs' ancestor, through whom they claim, was present at the sale and made sundry purchases, one of the tracts bought by him being described in the sheriff's deed as the west half of the northeast fourth of said section. There was evidence tending to show that Wall supposed he had purchased the west half of the southwest fourth, and that he ever after acted upon that supposition; that is, from the date of the purchase in 1850 to the time of his death in 1865. The plaintiffs, however, show in their ancestor no paper title to the lot sued for. They rely wholly upon a title supposed to have been acquired by him in virtue of an adverse possession of more than ten years, under claim of title.

Some evidence was given at the trial tending to prove possession in Wall, under claim of title, from 1850 to 1865. The land was surveyed, taxes paid, and timber cut. Evidence was also given, notwithstanding the defendants' objections to it, tending to show what occurred at the sheriff's sale in 1850, and that Wall bid on and bought in the land in question. This oral evidence was of course inadmissible as showing title in Wall by purchase. It was, however, admissible for the purpose of pointing out the tract in fact claimed by him. Whether the subsequent possession was of a character to make good the claim, is another matter.

The trial was by the court, and the court in effect declared the law to be that an uninterrupted, notorious, adverse possession of ten years under claim of title in fee operated to vest in the claimant so holding possession the title to the claimed land as effectually as though such title had been acquired by deed. This proposition does not seem to be seriously contested, and there is no doubt of...