*1 OF MISSOURI, COURT 374 SUPREME Sawyer v. French'. City [State Ellison, therein. ex rel. v. 220 Kansas W, Hayes rel. Ellison, State ex v. 191 498;
S. W. S. Safety l. c. ex rel. Heine Boiler v. Robert 53; State Co. Manifestly, W. l. 102.] therefore, c. son, S. suggested by not for onr relator, errors are considera tion. urged passing upon
In matters various rela- we functions tor, have adhered writ of cer- pronounce- in latest tiorari as this court declared its pressed upon ments. yond attention be- Much that our is is sphere authority, when our measured sought remedy to be invoked. writ this case im-
Our that the is conclusion granted quashed. providently should be is so All ordered. concur. Appellants, et
JOHN H. SAWYER EMMA al., FRENCH. Banc,
In November 1921. Appellate 1. PARTITION: Action at Law: Practice. If equitable no alleged partition suit, features are petition either in the or answer, equitable no prayed, relief is the issues strictly are legal, on the decision facts the court sitting jury as a binding appellate is on -and the court evidence cannot be con- appeal. sidered cLenovo on Self-Serving: Objection. DEED: Re-executed: No 2. Whether or not reciting a former and lost deed was made to a hus- wife, surviving band made ten wife or twelve knowledge heirs, after husband’s without of his th^ self-serving part on an inadmissible declaration of the wife and hearsay partition suit was mere between heirs grantee will husband and not be appeal, decided appellant objection heirs where said at the trial introduction of said deed evidence. Objection: -: -: Inadmissible: No Probative Force. In- including evidence, hearsay, objection, admissible admitted without force, nullity probative given is to be its void not.a A if it in law admissible. recital probative effect as were natural to a wife had lost been a deed a former husband former made in re-execution deed and and that it was *2 if ob- surviving wife, admitted in evidence without made the to probative that former jection, given its effect the is to be natural by and created an the husband and wife estate deed was deed to although deed was made ab- entirety, the the re-executed the husband’s sence of the heirs. Mortgage by Es- iaxes Raid Husband: ENTIRETY: and DEED BY toppel. that, for paid because It not follow the husband does subsequently paid it, his note either land, gave the therefor or conveyed by administrator, where had the land to himself or his he entirety, by as the wife be and his tenants will himself wife rights as such Where claim her tenant. is estopped to there had former hus- in a that a lost to a recital been it was made in re-execution former wife and that said band and surviving faet that, before re- made to the said deed and had, wife made, was administratrix of her execution mortgage upon special estate, paid a taxes husband’s assessed funds, property, out of it against estate was inven- estop part estate, grantee his does not her or her toried as to not property was the husband claim that especially heirs; his ruling to should be not descend did mortgage showing that note is no was there where his right it was her alone, for if it his alone duty, note pay to with the funds estate, of his it es- of his administratrix
tate. -: -: Course: -: Usual Provision for Wife. It things entirely with the usual course of for consistent the husband pay, land pay, intend to for and encumbrances thereon to which conveyed himself wife; and if has caused be mort- he signed him, alone, gage she is wise estopped note surviving entirety tenant claim the land the faet she, that, death, as the administratrix of his estate, paid after moneys Besides, of the estate. the note with this ease there evidence, objection,'that admitted without the deed to her and her lost at the time of his husband was and neither nor her attorney knew after been settled, until the estate had and not un- they true facts from the grantor, til learned the deed conveyed land to husband. Appeal Jasper Joseph from Circuit Court.—Hon. D. Judge.
Perkins, MISSOURI, OF 376 SUPREME COURT Affirmed. appellants. Esterly
Hugh B. H. Dabbs and undisputed the'con- (1) evidence shows Tlie controversy Emma French veyance solely through of Mrs. Sarah the recollection came about attorney, by respondent’s Mr. Sawyer, as testified to original Hackney, executed that the Appellants jointly. insist herself husband to her impossible have had for Mrs. be that would such recollection described. under the circumstances recognized contrary of nature. The laws be would judicial notice of the known laws courts take well Cyc. p. (56); Ency. Evidence, 902; nature. 16 may judicially development faculty memory be *3 People Ency. p. v. 32. note 933. Evidence, noticed. 7 Estoppel Supp. (2) N. Y. Hun, 343, 85 32 Martin, upon, representation holding in consists for truth a acted privies, deny person to his seek when the who made it, deprive upon party to who acted it of truth and its the benefit obtained. 16 toppel, p. Bigelow
Cyc. on Es- 723-724; 39 v. Mo. 27; 229; Chouteau State Goddin, Bank 112 Fowler v. 63 Mo. Frame, 513; Carr, v. Mo. App. Spence Savings v. 486; Renfro, 421; 179 Mo. Union App. Association v. Mo. ICehlor, 158, 163; 7 Boles v. Bennington, position party 136 Mo. 530. a has Where taken a property, ownership proceeding in estopped in a later to the relied record, court of he will thereafter be from taking position proceeding in an adverse another prejudice parties proceeding the former who upon position formerly taken and would be in- jured position Cyc. were the adverse maintained. 16 knowledge 684. One who, of the facts and without objection, expenditures suffers another to make on or in connection under a with his claim of title there- estopped deny right prej- to will be such title or udice that other who has in reliance on acted and been by. Cyc. 16 misled conduct. Craddock 765; Short, v. 377 1921. 257; Stevenson 113 Louis, Mo. 134 St. 449; Mo. Goods v. Rogers, 63 Mo. County, Collins v. 425; 65 Mo. v. Saline 515. respondent. Gray for
Howard testimony conflicting (1) The court heard trial respondent, court will not this for the and found testimony. Trust v. weigh Union Co. St. Louis _ Sturgis, 276 rel. v. Mo. ex State 434; 223 S. W. Hill, 667; 268 Mo. Gil- Railroad, McGinnis v. 458; 208 W. S. question (2) The 226 S. W. Railroad, bert v. suggested in no wise estoppel case, is up pleadings. the defendant set title When legal title if the they her, showed record lots and question appellants estoppel, to raise desired reply. Compressed done their Air should have Co. so App. 11; McClure v. Mo. Bank, v. 166 Mo. 263 Fulton, D’Arcy, Mo. 128; 617; Dibert v. 248 Sanders Chart- v. Mo. Mo. Railroad 352; Swinehart v. rand, Co., testimony (3) appellants The cannot claim objection, estoppel was admitted without and there- alleged reply objection that it was not fore, testimony that all the offered for the reason unavailable, prove appellants claim tended an es- and which now ' pertinent toppel issue. under another Swinehart Company, (4) supra. ques- Outside of Railroad which, pleading, there are no tion of facts case on estoppel. only testimony to base in the first statement of Mrs. *4 found annual ap- administratrix her husband’s estate of wherein it mortgage upon pears paid property that a out personal of of the assets estate. This same settle- principal mortgage of ment a on shows the farm personal paid was also out of the assets. Mrs.
only liability a in had dower interest that farm and her mortgage, was one-third of'an annual interest on that yet App. Fuller v. principal Devolld, Mo. the whole paid personal property of the in out which MISSOURI, OF COURT SUPREME Again, absolutely. interest an one-tenth had undivided done what was only settlement and annual this was an does recórd matter the final to this settlement relative principle elementary Again, in order it is an not disclose. urging’ parties estoppel available, for an to be something which to do misled or induced must have been they age of were all The children not have done. would home have the undoubtedly their mother wanted say that it is unreasonable free of encumbrance, they her and made to even known deed was if had against pay- protested they would have husband, estoppel mortgage. invoking an ment of the Parties unequivo- precise clear, must establish their case App. Northrup 639. 150 Mo. cal evidence. v. Colter, partition. parties in The are SMALL, C. Suit Sawyer, died nine children heirs of Benville who surviving, him in He left a widow intestate also Sawyer, The his said children. Sarah A. the mother of sought partitioned, farm consists of a land, eighty to be improved, having a lots, and two both one
acres, building, thereon, store and the other a residence both city Carthage in in situated on Avenue Garrison February, County. Jasper The widow in died children son, H. and two other of said John plaintiffs, daughter, French, are and Emma five others are the defendants. statutory petition peti- the usual form of alleging plaintiffs partition,
tions for and defendants owners, common, are the tenants lots owning city Carthage, each an undivided one- and certain therein, ninth interest interests said farm. susceptible is not division, That etc. Whereupon, plaintiffs pray that be sold proceeds according partition divided re- and the spective rights parties. Emma
The answer defendant French consists of allegation general a further denial, and affirm- *5 Vol.
Sawyer v. Freneh. open, ex- notorious and' she is the ative defense that possession owner sole exclusive clusive right city parties property, no have said and the other discharged her prays with therein, or title to he pleading. The defendants filed no costs. other reply -put French Emma answer of defendant The in issue. dispute parties all trial,
At the there was petition. The stated in the owners of farm, were Carthage ownership controversy to the sole was as property. to own French claimed The defendant Emma by by her aof deed made to her virtue this appellants September The claim mother, dated conveyed Emma no title to because French, property by deed father was the sole owner of the their time his which alone, death, him at the recorded, was lost after however, was never hut possession the mother. father’s Where while lost claims, Emma as, the defendant French alone, not a to the father to him deed was entirety: tenants Sarah A. having having father, she, that her mother survived her obtained deed from mother, aforesaid, property. owner of sole shows without serious evidence, contradiction, city property farm and the
that both were allowed possession the children to remain and use of their long as she lived. mother as That the deed to farm alone, father’s name and was recorded before appointed his death. That the widow was administratrix estate of her deceased husband in and includ- inventory property belonging real in her ed deceased which estate husband, subscribed question, her, sworn to the lots which were subject of trust of $600, Her interest. approved August annual settlement was made and first money belonging 14, 1894, shows paid amounting off the incumbrance, estate she to $648.25, MISSOURI, OF COURT SUPREME *6 amounting special property, taxes thereon and the evidence. in is not shown final settlement to The $22.53. her daughter, who lived Padfield, E. Lenora until 1893 in death father’s mother from time her the for plaintiffs the deed she saw that for 1902,testified charge, it, and in mother’s at home her in lots name father’s in her farm, deed well to deeds. in either was not mother’s name alone. Her talked During she her mother lived with time she Carthage property, and her regarding with her belonged herself,” “us and children to said it mother property.” in the had an interest “all children parties, in who resided cousin Sutter, J. R. buy the City, 1899 in he desired That Kansas property testified: A. Mrs. Sarah and went his suit, aunt, in he regarding Sawyer, French, Emma defendant and also the (himself, They purchase Emma French and of it. attorney Sawyer) of Mrs. Saw- A. went to see the Sarah Kilgore, yer, it that Judge and was discovered it, about possible a clear unless all to deliver it not sign all it. understood That it, he heirs would except his was no will left that there that was said, explanation A. him offered Sarah únele, from the attorney. Sawyer attor- French and and Emma way ney only the deed could be was to said the delivered present. partition. bring “We were all in three a suit I didn’t no deed.” see any statement made Court: Was “The your that aunt about who held the
French or your property sir, at time uncle died? Yes, and the fact that he will, he held left no left it they subject some to the weren’t able to heirs, find purchase. willing They and I wasn’t to make the of them did was, did know where John and neither they was.” know where Noah plaintiffs:
Gleorge K. testified son, sister he had Emma French a number That seen she never claimed him to 1905, times since n 381 suit until after -the a deed to have vicinity of in lived brought. his brothers None of Carthage. plaintiffs': daughter, testified for Green, a
Amanda at home her her mother visited 1901, That 1905, 1910, 1913, 1911, Kansas, also Wichita, time, several months each remained “After her, her mother told on one occasion looking papers, over his I Haughawout found father’s from Joshua his deed not recorded he had I property on when found Avenue, it, Garrison ’’ her mother In told tliat she me. deed- it scared Emma “I French, said, did ed *7 my shortly I mistake after sick, so and saw I was when ’’ it. I had done plaintiffs: Sawyer, a son, David B. testified for prior That in That he lived Colorado. his father’s paid went him when' he off loan on with the he Building Loan Association. to the & That days three four after his father’s death he within papers over the the in looked and saw deed to lots warranty it. That deed, and it was read Haughawout, grantor, executed Joshua to his Sawyer,' “my and his heirs, B. father, ,in the name not mentioned deed was mother’s and deeds joined-as grantees. There one of were the my properties they all in chest, other the were That he his mother’s attention father’s name.” called not in the deed, fact that her name was and she give part her that the would said, “No, law protect never claimed her interest.” That his mother except any dower. interest testimony, French introduced
Defendant Emma substance as follows: attorney Hackney, F. testi- administratrix,
B. through papers going the deceased, : That in fied to prepare inventory for he found administratrix, eighty deeds, land old deed to acres other SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI,
but could find no question, went to the Recorder’s Office failed any to find such they present recorded. That the widow was when .searched for'the sometime after the settle ment of the estate “she with her living sent for me and she was
daughter [Emma French]. She wanted that up fixed Haugh and I went and conferred with Mr. they agreed up awout and on that deed and fixed what purported (indicating) to be re-executed deed. This Haughawout is the deed. Don’t know where Mr. is now. I made the [as settlement administratrix] for her. I legal Judge attended to Kilgore matters. She went to a time or two. Didn’t know deed was around house several after the father’s death. Never anyone Haughawout heard claim it was. went I to see several times and talked matter over before the up deed was and then re-executed, wrote the deed at request parties. supposed At the time we doing duty inventory we were our lots. these I didn’t any controversy up think at the time. Mrs. leaving put with matter us. Whatever we inventory] right
[the all with her, we had the papers through carefully and went them for the deed. The deed was made to Mrs. French 1'905, agreement They to take care of her mother. were then living over on and soon Street, Kellar after that property. took her mother and went over on this *8 Sawyer arrangements said she wanted make for her declining years. Sawyer except I think Mrs. lived there trip. a short time she was for Wichita I a am satis fied she until lived there her death. Mrs. French was living handling property, using there and the it as her own.” On witness cross-examination, this testified: “It my Sawyer paid was on advice 'that Mrs. off the mort gage property on the and taxes out of the funds of the Sawyer property I didn’t Mrs. ask if the be .estate. longed put inventory. to the estate when it in I the I supposed question re-executing it did.' The deed the up anyhow inventory came ten after was made. Haughawout claimed made the two—Ben Mr. Sawyer Sawyer, Mrs. and wife. ville A. wanted np. notary ont honse I took to her she deed fixed All time Mrs. French. made the deed to the rent property from Mrs. collected Sawyer. Carthage am satisfied she had use of I lived. talked while she We re-execution years. might probably for of only deed three It have been nothing had few months. French do re-executing the deed.” on her own
Defendant Emma French be- testified my child. “From the was the oldest time half: She they Haughawout father I never saw the claim died, being property. its I never made for this heard.of always supposed to be lost.” Her the house. she her some months before mother lived with provision wanted,to make for the deed to her. “She keep -1 care lifetime. took of her and me to own.money. my going I remember her with buried ’’ Judge Kilgore’s cross-examination, On said: office. Kilgore’s Judge office, at the con- time I was “At Kilgore. mother and this deed between versation was thinking purchasing prop- Mr. Sutter I knew erty. about Mr. conversation was Sutter Q. A. sir.” said? Yes, in evidence
Defendant Emma French then offered quit-claim from Joshua deed. It re-executed D. was a surviving Haughawout Sawyer, wife A. Sarah September Sawyer, dated deceased, wife of Benville A. September conveying 21, 1905, recorded reciting: question, “The de- above Haughawout grantors, Hettie wife, D. Joshua scribed the-day Haughawout, E. --, heretofore about acknowledged delivered to Benville 1893, executed, A. A. husband a Sarah Sawyers whereby grantors conveyed to said lost; above deed has been lots, which described re-execution of former now made this deed Sawyer the survivor.” and is made to Sarah *9 SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI, defendant introduced evidence the Said also deed to September, her made mother. It was dated 29th of September recorded 1905. It 1905, was a war- “upon ranty consideration one condition” dollar, grantee supports during her mother the mother’s upon performance life “and this this condition, con- veyance upon per- to become failure to absolute, grant- form said to revert condition” the objection any testimony or. in- There was no of the troduced. plaintiffs Thereupon,
This was all of the evidence. following ashed the court law, declaration of which the gave: recovery of partition
“An for action for is not one providing no lands, State, within the statutes of recovery action unless for shall be maintained such plaintiff pos- person.under or the whom he claims was premises com- sessed of within ten before the mencement action.” February Afterwards,
The trial was had .25, before the Emma decision, court rendered its deféndant quit-claim French offered evidence a two parties, George E. and Amanda con- Green, veying to her of $96.50, consideration undivided two portion property. ninths of a This dated April October 1st, 1898, and recorded con- 1903, and veyed “being the undivided our two-ninths, interest Sawyer (deceased).” heirs at law Benville A. acknowledged Kilgore, notary public, H. before W. Jasper County, day Missouri, 5th October,
On December 21,1918, the court found the issues judgment dispute rendered as to the in favor unsuccessfully Emma after French, defendant appealed moving plaintiffs for a new trial to this court. pleadings equitable I. The this case are at no law, alleged, petition are answer, features either or the equitable prayed relief for. issues, there *10 385 OCTOBER TERM,
Sawyer v. French. having strictly legal, case been are by and the- fore, sitting jury, are hound tried as a court we. Action at Law. facts, on lower the decision court and cannot case consider the evidence novo. de [Koehler Bank v. 275 and cases Rowland, 573, cited; Mo. (Mo.) 381.] v. 222 S. W. Wilson, strenuously appellants’ argued by
II. It is learned September counsel 19, that re-executed deed dated September Haughawout 1905, 1905, recorded from 21, Sawyer, reciting that and wife to Sarah Self-Servingthe former and lost to Ben- Sawyer, ville A. Sarah A. hus Deed: No Objection. probative no is band force to conveyance show a as wife one of the tenants entirety, is evidence that the husband was grantee; having that recital in said been made ten or twelve after her husband’s death, and with knowledge out or consent heirs, of his anis inadmissible Sawyer, part self-serving declaration on hearsay probative
mere as said and of heirs, force against agree argument. as them. We cannot to this pass it admissible, Whether was we need on. No objection made to the introduction in evidence ap re-executed deed at trial of the case. pellants complain ap cannot, therefore, in court peal [Bank was inadmissible as evidence. 614.] Pierce, of Commerce v. 280 Mo. appellants argue
III. But learned counsel of that, although objection, it admitted without its charac hearsay self-serving ter as as them and as to Mrs. deprives probative it of all force her favor grantee,
or in favor of her Emma French. Inadmissible We cannot concur in this contention. In- Evidence: ...... (assuming admissible evidence be. it'to Probative Force. such), including hearsay evidence, admit objection, nullity ted without probative not a or void of given force, probative but is to be its natural effect 290 Mo.—25 MISSOURI, COURT OF SUPREME
386 [10 L. 197 R. C. secs. if p. in law admissible. it was case. 1008.] even in criminal This is true, (a criminal c. 450 l. U. S. v. United States, In Diaz it the fact that se), “So, said: court ca when evidence hearsay, observe suffices con objection be it is to without is admitted character probative if it were given effect natural its sidered 408; [Damon 163 Mass. Carrol, v. law admissible. Mc v. United Sissa, 349, 355; 5 Nev. States v. Sherwood Coy, Ry. 205 U. Buffalo Co., 598; Schlemmer U. S. *11 v. Foster 370, 396; 103 U. S. Delaware, Neal v. 9;1,S. 176.]” 178 Fed. States, United widely the re-executed deed from deed differs This Langley by Kesler, 57 Ore. passed on the court by Blue Book Evidence, from Jones’s counsel cited page deed recited the re-executed 550. In case, that original to the husband alone, was made deed that the property, paid bought but in for the and that he alone made to himself and wife as a to have deed tended by him gift it was to alone. mistake to her, conveyed effectually ruled that the title The court original by law and deed, alone to the husband equity, by recitals in the re-executed as shown grantor had no further title to con tlaerefore, and, acceptance by vey, the husband of the the mere re- and original grantor to himself from the executed deed deprived gave title the wife no husband wife, gift only make intention to her could none; his original by him after the be a deed from effected relevancy That therefore, him. has was made to to case, recital of the case where the facts on the here, face original that the re-executed deed or shows both the title was made to husband wife.
We that the therefore, rule, re-executed deed must, having objection, in this been admitted’without case, original that the lost recitals therein were evidence conveyed to the husband was made and wife and to them entirety. by the an estate OCTOBER TERM, argued the laud because that, IY. it is further But, s belonging to the land inventoried wa as knowledge Sawyer’s con
husband’s estate mortgage and a administratrix, sent, $648 Estoppel. paid by special off taxes thereon were and $22 belonging to with the funds such administratrix her as daughter, Emma and her or both she heirs, the estate estopped not claim the to French would be to deceased husband and of her descended agree It contention. does not this his heirs. We do pays for the land, the husband not that because follow pays subsequently gives it, note or his therefor, by he had administrator, where either himself his conveyed himself his as tenants the land wife, entirety, estopped wife be to claim would appear rights tenant. It as such does paid note was not the note of the hus off case, the. right duty, administra alone. so, band If pay it off funds of the estate. This with the would trix, estop way the land in no her to claim tenant entirety. entirely course consistent with usual pay, things, pay, for the husband to intend to for land or encumbrances thereon which he has caused conveyed be as tenants himself and conclusively entirety. The evidence does hot show that *12 pay legally Mrs. as could administratrix, off the encumbrance with the funds of the al estate, might though surviving the title have been her as entirety. tenant the deed was lost and
Furthermore, could not' be according at the found respondent’s time the husband’s to and both the evidence, wife and her at- torney supposed no doubt at that time that the was title Sawyer may husband Mrs. alone, not have learned the exact fact to as how the deed was made until making about the time of the re-executed deed, attorney when grantor, she and her interviewed the Haughawout, subject on the and he informed them that original deed was made to both her husband and MISSOURI, OF COURT SUPREME
Sawyer French. entirety. also evidence This by the tenants herself, objection. conversation The was admitted without So perhaps before. Haughawout or in 1905 definite- Sawyer known may not have therefore, also, she, when property in 1899 ly had title that she presence of in the Sutter, told witness effect, in her deed to that the French, Emma have of the heirs would that all name, husband’s join pur- good give he title in case him a in the deed might not French reason Emma the same For chased. property, when owned the mother known that her have in quit-claim brother deed from her took 1898 she of their the heirs interest as for two-ninths sister probate evidence, shown records, court father. The Sawyer no doubt Sutter, were of Mrs. and admissions original husband alone, to her that the deed was evidence estoppel an nor conclusive as evidence, but not conclusive against subsequently claiming by the en- tenant original tirety, the fact that the she ascertained when her and her as such tenants. made to husband deed was against appel- having court found The below appeal, only can consider the lants, court, this respondent, plaintiffs evidence of evidence of the undisputed evidence, record admitted be true, province jury lower it was the court—as a because pass upon weight credibility —to the verbal plaintiffs’ testimony given by witnesses, and that against having found are court we concluded them, finding. nothing we there is hold, So that, testimony admittedly respondent’s or the true evidence plaintiffs, evidence in the record case—the permitted only testimony we are consider—to neces- probative sarily as matter law overcome the .and by Haughawout force of the re-executed deed made reciting original that the to Mrs. entirety. and her husband, tenants probative weight force of such recital, having objection, been without admitted *13 sitting jury, the trial as a court, of all view the facts , 1921. Vol. Serv. Commission. v. Publ. ex rel. Railroad
State its disturb and we cannot in the case, circumstances thereon. verdict affirm
Finding case, we no reversible error judgment it be so recorded. Let of the lower court. Ragland, absent. C., concurs; Brown, C., foregoing opinion by Small,
PER CURIAM:—The opinion adopted All of the as the court. isC., judges except dis- Graves, JJ., who Woodson concur, sent. ex FRANCISCO
THE STATE rel. ST. LOUIS-SAN and WALKER D. HINES, RAILWAY COMPANY Appellants, Railroads, Director General SERVICE THE PUBLIC COMMISSION OF STATE OF MISSOURI. Banc,
In November 1921. Hearing PUBLIC-SERVICE COMMISSION: Before General 1. Counsel. An assignment ap- the Public Service Commission erred general special pointing its examiner counsel as to conduct hearing complaint it, pending before reason by law, appointment overruled, was unauthorized will be without legality determining appointment, apparent where it is injured appellant thereby. has not been Compulsory Stoppage of RAILROADS: Trains: Interference With competent Interstate require Commerce. is for a state to ade- quate stoppage facilities, local even of interstate trains at given re-arrangement point or schedule; their adequate may fact whether' local facilities are the court deter- findings, mine make its as a of equity, own court since such necessarily fact involved in the determination Federal order whether Public Service Commission con- cerning directly regulate train an interstate does or does not in- imposing arbitrary requirement. terstate commerce an -: -: -: Grove. The St. Louis-San Mountain Fran Railway railway from Company City has line of Kansas cisco Tennessee, through prior Memphis, passing Springfield,