Watson v. Huffman

• Decision Date: 04 June 1918
• Docket Number: No. 18902.,18902.
• Citation: 204 S.W. 184
• Parties: WATSON et al. v. HUFFMAN.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

204 S.W. 184

WATSON et al. v. HUFFMAN.

No. 18902.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.

June 4, 1918.

Error to Circuit Court, Pemiscot County; Frank Kelly, Judge.

Action to quiet title by Leona Watson and others against Joyce Huffman. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiffs bring error. Affirmed.

McKay & Brewer, of Caruthersville, for plaintiffs in error. R. L. Ward, of Caruthersville, for defendant in error.

BOND, J.

I. Plaintiffs sue to quiet title to 160 acres of land in Pemiscot county, in which they claim an undivided one-third interest as the representatives of heir deceased mother, who was one of the three children of William T. Harbert, deceased, who, plaintiffs alleged, died intestate in 1871 and while still the owner of the land in dispute.

The defendant is the representative, through inheritance and mesne conveyances, of one Carl Huffman, now deceased, against whom the suit was originally brought, and set up in her answer title to the land in fee simple by the 10-year statute of limitations and the 30-year statute of limitations and through the lathes of plaintiffs.

The trial court found the issues in favor of the defendant. The trial court found the facts, in substance, to be that plaintiffs, except James R. Brewer, are the heirs and representatives of one of the three children of William T. Harbert and claimed through him; that his title was derived by conveyance from Pemiscot county on August 5, 1856; that he sold the land by warranty deed September 10, 1856, to one Sterling Jones. The court found that the defendant was the sole heir of her father, Carl Huffman, and through him and mesne conveyances to him claimed title to the land in dispute.

The defendant claims title in three ways: First, by oral proof tending to show the running of the 10 and 30 year statutes of limitations against Sterling Jones in favor of defendant and those under whom she claims. The two other chains of title need not be considered in the view we have taken of this case, nor the issues arising on the plea of ladies and estoppel in defendant's answer.

The learned trial judge found the two pleas of the statutes of limitations to be sustained by the evidence adduced on the trial, a careful examination of which supports the correctness of that finding. It is, however, insisted by the learned counsel for appellant that defendant did not acquire the outstanding title emanating from the ancestor of plaintiffs to Sterling Jones in 1856, and therefore are...