87 Mo. 450 | Mo. | 1885
This is a suit in ejectment to recover the possession of the real estate described in the petition as-follows : Part of a certain tract of land formerly known as land or lot five hundred, in the orginal survey of the-City of Kansas, commonly called Old Town, as the same is marked or designated on the recorded plat of said original .survey and described as follows : ‘ ‘ Commencing at the southwest corner of Fifth and Wyandotte streets in the City of Kansas: thence westwardly along the south side of Fifth street; fifty-five feet, thence southwardly at right angles with Fifth street, and parallel with Wyandotte street, to the line between townships forty-nine and fifty, range thirty-three ; thence eastwardly along said to wnship line to the west line of Wyandotte street; thence northwardly along the west line of Wyandotte street to the place of beginning.” The petition is in the usual form. Suit was commenced March 24, 1876, and the-ouster laid February 19, 1876. The defendant answered by general denial only. The cause was submitted to a jury, and the plaintiffs, to support the issues on their part, offered a variety of testimony, documentary and oral, the purport and nature of which will hereafter be-noticed in the progress of this opinion.
At the close of the plaintiffs’ case, the court, by way of demurrer to the evidence, instructed the jury at the-request of the defendant, that under the pleadings and the evidence the plaintiffs could not recover. Whereupon the plaintiffs'-took a non-suit with leave to set the same-aside, and after an unsuccessful motion for that purpose
At a sale of this property, under said trust deed, thereafter made, it appears that said Alexander & Lansing became the purchasers thereof and received from said trustee a deed therefor; and that conveyances thereof
In addition to these deeds, the plaintiffs also offered in evidence a deed from Fry P. McGee, one of the original proprietors of the city to Gabriel Phillibert, dated in August, 1851, in which the property is described as 11 the following described lot or parcel of land, lying and • being in the town of Kansas, in Jackson county and state of Missouri, and known as lot number five hundred (500)” ; also a deed from said Phillibert to said Coffman and Gregory, in which the property is described as “the following described lot or parcel of land lying and being in the town of Kansas, in Jackson county and state of Missouri, namely, lot number five hundred (500) as shown and designated on the recorded plat of said town of Kansas.” The plaintiffs further offered in evidence a title bond from said Coffman and Gregory to said Robert Charles for said property, dated in December, 1854, in which it is described as, “a block of land situated and being in the town of Kansas, county of Jackson, state of Missouri, it being the whole of a lot or parcel of ground laid out on the plat of said town as recorded in the clerk’s •office of said county and state, and known as block number (500) five hundred. ’ ’
Robert Charles, the husband of said Elizabeth Charles, and the lather of the plaintiffs, being introduced as a witness by plaintiffs, testified that his said wife, Eliza-' beth, died on the nineteenth of February, 1876, and that the plaintiffs are her children and the sole surviving heirs of her body. This witness being handed the said deed from Coffman and Gregory to his wife, Elizabeth, and being asked whether he took possession of any land
Lucas, the recorder of deeds, for said county, being-introduced as a witness, produced three plats of the old town of Kansas City of 1839, 1846 and 1847, which he-testified had been kept in the recorder’s office among its-files for many years, though not filed or placed on file ; that of 1846 has an endorsement of filing, but the others have not; that there is a book of record for maps kept in the office which contains copies of all the original maps, and that thé plat of 1847 had actually been placed
The plaintiffs then introduced J. C. McCoy as a witness, who being sworn and handed said plat of 1847, testified in substance, that he was a surveyor and as such made the plat of 1847 as well as that of 1846, for the original proprietors of said town.; and, against the defendant’s objection, he was allowed to testify that he could locate land five hundred on said plat of 1847, and did, then and there, proceed to point out and locate the same-.thereon, at the corner of Fifth and Wyandotte streets. He also said that the tract (of two hundred and sixty-six acijes) was. partly platted off into blocks, called lands-which were afterwards subdivided. His testimony also, if I understand it, is to the effect, that both plats of 1846 and 1847 show the real estate involved in this suit; that of 1846 shows the ground without number or designation, on it, while that of 1847 shows the same ground, and on. it the same is marked and numbered “land five hundred.” These plats, however, seem not to have been formally, or otherwise offered in evidence. This witness, also speaking of the plat of 1847 and the boundaries of' land five hundred, states that land five hundred (500), as represented on the map, was bounded on the north by Fifth street, on the east by Wyandotte street and on the south by the township line ; on the west it is indefinite and runs out to a point.
Alexander, McCoy and Squires, as witnesses, all say in their testimony that they took possession, held and claimed the property under the several deeds in that behalf so offered in evidence by the plaintiffs, and that they had no other deed or claim to the property except such aa these deeds and their possession thereunder gave tfyem. Robert Charles, also, testifies that néither he nor his wife,Elizabeth, had any other deed or claim to the property, except said title bond and said deed from said Coffman and Gregory, heretofore mentioned.
The defendant, by a rigid cross-examination of plaintiffs’ witnesses, sought to show by the evidence thus elicited that the.aforesaid deed from Coffman and Gregory to 'Mrs, Elizabeth Charles, the wife of said Robert Charles, for the property in question was caused
From the view we have taken of the question, it is not necessary to set out in detail the evidence on this, branch of the case. Conceding, without deciding, that it was competent for the defendant, under the pleadings, • to make such proof, still it may be said of the evidence touching the husband’s financial condition, prospects- and purposes, at the date of the deed in question, that at most it is of such a nature and character and so variant in itself as to warrant and require its submission to the jury for their consideration and determination in that behalf. This is especially so when in connection therewith, we consider the inconsiderable value of the property at that date, coupled with the husband ’ s then comparative means and freedom from debt, together with the great length of time intervening between the date of the deed sought to be impeached and that of the trust deed under which defendant claims. The first ■ bears date in June, 1855, and the second in November, * 1857.
In proper cases, where the pleadings seek to divest the legal title to real estate from’ one party and vest it in another, such evidence is unquestionably proper; and if we concede, as we may do for the purposes of this case, •
The real questions, however, arising upun the demurrer to the evidence in this record are, first, whether there is any evidence of such title in the plaintiffs as ■entitles them to recover in this action; and, second, whether there is any evidence to identify the land sued ■ for and described in the petition as a part of the land • described in the deed from Coffman and Gregory to Mrs. ■ Charles and the heirs of her body.
As to the first proposition, the defendant insists that there is no evidence that the plaintiffs hold the legal title to the premises ; and as to the' second, he de-. ■nies that there is any competent evidence whatever to ' support that position, that is, to identify the land sued for with that described in said deed. If the defendant is right in his estimate of the plaintiffs’ evidence, the demurrer was properly given ; but if not, then the case should have gone to the jury for their consideration and • determination. The rule on this subject is well stated by Pattison in the first volume of his Digest, page 322, para- ’ graphs 67, 68, 77 and 78, and cases cited, where it- is said: “Whether .there is any evidence, or what- its
In the first place, it appears by the evidence that the said deed from Coffman and Gregory to Elizabeth Charles and the heirs of her body is the source of title, •common to both the plaintiffs and defendant; and that neither party had or claimed any other- title to said property, except such as the deeds offered in evidence by the plaintiffs and the possession thereunder gave them. In such case, the rule is that the party plaintiff, in an ■action of ejectment, need not go further and show that the common grantor held the legal title. If the defendant has another title it is his duty to show it, and unless he does so the plaintiff will recover. Holland v. Adair, 55 Mo. 40; Butcher v. Rogers, 60 Mo. 138; Miller v. Hardin et al., 64 Mo. 545.
In the next place, the first question for consideration is the force and effect of said deed. It is claimed by the plaintiffs that its force and effect was to. vest in Mrs. Charles, the grantee named therein, an estate for and during her life only, with remainder in fee to the said heirs of her body. This construction of the deed4 as I understand, is not controverted by the defendant, provided the same is a valid instrument and the land properly identified by the evidence. R. S., 1845, p. 219. sec. 5; R. S., 1855, p. 355, sec. 5; Chiles v. Bartleson. 21 Mo. 344, where this doctrine is expressly decided 24 Mo. 453-4; Harbison et al. v. Swan, 58 Mo. 147; Tesson
What are the facts as shown by the record ? It ap-' pears, or at least the evidence all tends to show, that the laúd sued for and described in the petition as “com-mencing at the southwest corner,” etc., is situated in-:
Plaintiffs’ evidence further tends to show that defendant and those under whom he claims severally took and held possession of the land in controversy under and by virtue of said deed of trust from Charles and wife to Campbell, the trustee, and the subsequent com
The case at bar is somewhat peculiar, and by its facts clearly distinguishable from the cases cited and relied on by defendant. Of the cases so cited, it may be said that there appears to, be two classes as to what is or is not a latent ambiguity, and as to when parol evidence may or may not be received to show an ambiguity or to . locate the land described in a deed; or whether or when. such evidence is admissible to explain an ambiguity' apparent on the face, of the deed. It is certainty somewhat difficult to reconcile all these cases and we need; not undertake to do so. In the case of Orr et al. v. How et al., 55 Mo. at page 329, the court uses this language: ■ “The plaintiffs introduced a witness who was a sur-: veyor, and he testified that he had surveyed the lot of. land, and could find it ■ from the description in the mortgage deed. This evidence- was objected to by, the defendants, but the objection was overruled, and the : defendant excepted. * * * I can see no objection,” •. observed the court, “to the evidence of the surveyor, which identified the description of the land as existing
As to the objection that the plat was not offered or introduced in evidence, it may be a little difficult from the record to determine whether that was -so or not; or in other words' to decide' what it takes to constitute an introduction in evidence within the meaning of that term. Prom the récord it appears that the plat in question was shown and handed the witness, McCoy, who was standing in the presence of the court and jury and pointing out and showing the location thereon of the lot or land in question. If this was done in the presence and sight of the triers of fact, can it be said that it was not introduced in evidence, within the meaning of the law 2 Or must it be held that in addition to this the' •plat must be formally handed or given to the jury for their inspection when not so requested by them. Prom the record as to what -was thus done we are hardly authorized to say that the said plat was not in evidence within the rule and the usual practice of trial courts in such cases.
Other questions involved and pressed upon our attention by counsel cannot change and are not necessary to the result already reached on the demurrer to the evi*