*1 280] Yol. County. Wright
Glenn v. Appellant, A. GLENN, v. COUNTY COURT OF COUNTY WRIGHT October Judgment. PUBLIC BOAD: Jurisdiction: Becitals is not suf- was.signed ficient that the road recite that it at least twelve freeholders of the at least three of them were Those of the immediate things jurisdictional, affirmatively appear the face county of the record of the establishment road; they duty appear, unless do so circuit appealed, to sustain to set aside Appeal T. Douglas John Circuit Court.—Eon. Judge.
Moore, directions). (with Reversed and remanded appellant. L. O. Neider and N. B. Wilhinson fatally it does defective proposed any termination of such describe definite description highway; gives where the land no legally it describe end; such road is to neither does proposed any to locate it is of the land wholly fails to describe And requirements, These are without unless law, thereafter they is no followed. There were record shows per- finding by court that resident sons who were or that Gasconade, of neighborhood” of the “immediate of them were of such facts evidence petition. except This is found in naked any finding, fatally there estab- defective. Nor been intended fact, notice lished required twenty days, given bills, etc., etc., hand MISSOURI. OF Ry. Young, Chicago, the law. R. I. & Pac. 492; Mitchell Railroad, Blackenstoe An- King Railroad, Railroad, *2 118 61; Foster, derson Mo. Ziebold v. Pemberton, v. 89- Daugherty Lingo 155; Mo. Burford, 349 112 ; v. Mo. County 54 Cowan, v. Mo. Brown, 30; v. Jefferson County, Whiteley Zim- 30;Mo. Platte v. Judy, 73 v. merman 88 Mo. Snowden, Colville Hughes Kirby, 654; Williams v. Glasgow, 254 M!o. 98;Mo. Mermod, highway Proceedings open public over a derogation to objecting to in' them:, are, a man’s land always regarded right, common common law and help juris” receive no intend- “strictissimi Railroad 2Ó0; Ellis v. Railroad, ments. Campbell, Mr. 585. respondent. for
J. W. Jackson the in instituted SMALL, C. This a public Wright County, open County road Court of appellant through belonging The the damages -was but allowed court, claimed in the judgment establishing the road. was rendered none, appealed said coun- circuit court of case to the He change ty, him to venue from which a was awarded Douglas County. that court Circuit judgment appellant to set moved aside Wright County, because court had obtained said -failed to show being subject-matter. jurisdiction This motion appealed duly appellant this court. denied, signed states the road competent duly qualified adult right owners petitioners, in their own of, residents in of, pass, them reside and that is to in
road public neighborhood of purports W. Borders F. and fifteen to be signers. appellant one others, tíi39 Yol. 280] WrigM The order the county court, upon hearing recites as follows: matter of petition, “In the W. F. Borders et al. Petition road. Now this taken day, up court having fully hereby considered above named orders cause, R. Wood, Highway pro- Commissioner, view, arid survey thirty out ceed feet width, described etc. There petition,” or the said or order, other order,
by at twelve or townships through which the proposed road
was to run, or that
three of them are of the immediate
are other
recitals
and statements
There
omitted from the order
court, which
*3
necessary,
view we
case,
take of the
to consider.
It was not sufficient
that
itself
recited
that
it was
at
of the
township,
that
them
and
were of the
neighborhood,
required
as
by
the statute under
which
brought
1913,
(Laws
p. 653). But
order
court
made at
time or prior
to the
granting
the petition
should show
its
found
face
signed.
was so
This was
to
power
county court- to take
initial
step
county engineer
out the
and
appear
affirmatively
upon
face
[Chicago
court.
Ry. Co.
Young,
Glasgow,
Judgment and cause di- remanded with the Circuit of Dbuglas rections sus- tain aside and annul judg- set OF MISSOURI.
Cross v. Huffman.
ment and Ragland, concur. GC., Brown and opinion foregoing PER. CURIAM’:—The Small, opinion adopted J., O., as the Blair, court. P. Graves, JJ., Woodson concur. Appellants, al., A. H. et CROSS SUSIE HUFFMAN December QUIETING Equity: Finding Suit in Appellate TITLE: of Facts: Practice. tbe If ascertain determine the title to land states facts which show defendants hold the title in trust for plaintiffs, alleged that the deed under which defendants’ claim con- upon title, plaintiffs’ presents equi- stitutes cloud and otherwise equitable relief, table issues garded asks for the suit re- should be equity, as one in the trial facts binding upon appellate Entirety: 2. RESULTING TRUST: Deed Purchased Wife’s With Money: Coparceners. Held, by Graves that a deed wife, joint tenants, made to husband and en- or tenants tirety, conveying fully paid money prop- the wife’s erty, previously possession, and which she entered into in- husband, vests no estate in the the entire invests estate in the wife, directs that the be made to her and him jointly. *4 By Estoppel. Held, 3. -: -: Wife’s Direction: by Graves - purchased paid where the wife has property possession it, having thereby and is in become equitable owner, conveying deed vendor’s title her and her vests with husband him no more title and with no her setting partition friendly than less would of her ancestor’s purporting off to her as cotenant her share therein convey property cases, the same to her and him. both hers, conveys him, nothing consequently, and she nothing direction, the deed is made done so her has estop claiming herself from own. her -: n -: Limitations. To constitute title limitations possession wife’s purchased must be exclusive. Where money only, and the her husband deed was made to her