*1 1920. TEEM, APEIL State Smith. Teague that tbe possible. case, tbe
ner held, aof simply convicted verdict, returned, have no court would this and, course, misdemeanor of Tbe jurisdiction case. upon pass tbe merits of tbe disposed properly of Teague was, therefore, case Eevised Statutes accordance with Section cited. heretofore and tbe authorities viewpoint, any Considering based case tbe from opinion upon that of we are aforesaid, tbe record although felony, only of a defendant was convicted juris- has court, therefore, Tbis and costs. fined $100 dispose accordingly. it must tbe cause, diction exceptions be- filed in tbe III. No. bill of proper. nothing but tbe record us there before is low, complies form and information conventional Tbe language error No reversible tbe statute. with tbe upon appearing of tbe tbe face record having Exceptions. proper No anp jpp exceptions 0f no judgment. been filed, affirm tbe we opinion foregoing PER CURIAM: Tbe Eailey, adopted hereby of tbe court. All C., is as tbe judges of tbe concur. Appellant, TOLLE. LOUIS TITUS,
F. D. July Two,
Division 1920. Injunction: Quieting Title: which A CAUSE OF ACTION: 1. designated alleges owner in fee of is the thereto, particularity forth with and sets how claims title alleges derived; that defendant claims some of title claim was' invalid; therein, and that it it interest how is. derived prayer he the status concludes with general issued, hy maintained, theretofore relief, equitable contains sufficient averments to invest jurisdiction determine the title under to ascertain and Statutes Revised Section SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI, good Necessary 2. -: Facts. All cause that is to state a constituting plain of action is that tlie facts it be forth set language, unnecessary general repetition; concise *2 without and sufficiently if statement definite inform the defendant such to on, pleading upheld. what is relied should be TITLE; QUIETING Ancillary Injunction. 3. In a to ascertain and suit plaintif injunction, in- determine entitled an having thereto, purpose cidental the court maintain adjudicated, status until can be has re- where alleged peatedly plaintiff’s possession taken in defiance to forcible title. Appeal from Circuit Thomas J. Jackson Court.—Hon. Judge.
Seehorn, directions). {with and remanded Reversed appellant. F. Titus for petition demurrer to the
The amended herein improperly prejudice sustained in the court to the below, appellant’s rights. Sec. R. S. 2515, 1909; ex State Dearing, by injunction rémedy rel. 180 v. Mo. 65. The irreparable injury in exists an cases where either property prevent any doing is threatened or to legal wrong whenever whatever, adequate remedy by court and cannot be afforded ac- an damages. tion for Lunsford, 78; v. 56 Lockwood Mo. Turner v. Company Stewart, 78 Mo. Tie Stone, App. Brewing 135 Mo. American Co. v. Louis, St. 187 Mo. 381; Ferral v. Am. Bradford, 50 Dec. Sills App. Goodyear, 128. Mo.
MOZLET, case C. This was certified to this court by City Appeals the Kansas Court for the reason that title to real estate is involved. only
The question action is one in presented plaintiff’s here for determination is, does against amended state a cause of action the de- fendant? claims to be the owner of the east feet of
Lots 17 18, in Phoenix No. Park, 4719 East 26th 1920. TEEM, APEIL Tolle.
Titus v. been has he City, and that Missouri, Street, Kansas de- That possession January since thereof (against to invade one Eussell fendant, caused Tolle, resi- plaintiff’s and the will) occupy said Tolle, claiming of said lessee dence to be thereon, expel plaintiff eject and violence force property is claim to therefrom. That Tolle’s sole woman, through Adams, a a from one derived deed J.E. alleged, owned never who, Iowa, resident remotely property, under any but claimed estate Leslie executed 18,1912, one D. Leslie. M. On June containing forfeiture clauses usual of trust deed question conveyed se- property which he non-payment obligation the deed of For of his. cure an sale was foreclosure had forfeited, trust was *3 plaintiff January, day became the 1915, and the 21st purchaser, took the trustee’s deed therefor and took his Shortly possession premises. after said actual of the plain- premises, possession of the the abandoned Eussell dwelling the fastened thereon, doors of the tiff locked padlocks pre- put on the to out-houses, windows and the premises, of his but invasion further forcible vent February, occupied by premises his he found one Upon and all of his locks broken. his refusal Goodman possession plaintiff, to deliver exhibited who to plaintiff he do so, him and demanded his deed to entry and detainer in forcible unlawful sued Goodman day peace, justice but on of the before before a justice', tried, before was to be Goodman the case again possession premises. quit took of Ms again openings premises secured doors and and shortly dwelling locks, thereon, house but there- Wingo forcibly posses- one took March, after, Demand for under said Tolle. the return of sion thereof upon possession Wingo thereof was made upon complaint plaintiff Thereafter, refused. and due Judge by plaintiff presiding then Thomas, before as judge division the circuit assignment court, MISSOURI, COURT SUPREME OF duly temporary
March 11, writ of was against acting behalf, issued and all Tolle premises restraining upon entering un- them from Wingo Thereupon til the further order court. of the possession again quit plaintiff premises, of said possession again into thereof and locked entered warning’ posted before, as intrud- notices unlawfully against entering ers therein. Nevertheless shortly plaintiff thereafter found that all locks had of his posted against been removed, as tres- well as the notices passing, occupied forcibly by and his E. one W. Cooper family, prem- claimed who to have rented the Cripes agents Coop- ises from and Hanna, for-said Tolle. possession give up upon plaintiff er refused justice sued him demand, before of the peace entry for forcible and unlawful detainer. On the day appeared the case tried, have been said Tolle prem- his counsel to own claimed the title to the Thereupon justice, certifying ises. instead of provided required by the circuit court as cause to proceeded Section Revised Statutes 1909, to, and judgment render did, defendant and taxed the costs against plaintiff.
I. Plaintiff’s amended sets forth all foregoing facts and some we deem un- others upon passing validity stating to notice its a cause of action. *4 petition
Does state a the cause action? of We think provisions it does the under of Section 2535, Revised pleads plaintiff it Statutes 1909: that the is owner of fee that claims sets forth particularity with how his claim of title was sets forth derived; that it defendant makes Cause of Action. some claim or of interest therein, fur particularity, ther forth, with sets how such claim was invalidity. alleges derived and its think We these aver ments juris were sufficient invest trial the with diction ascertain and determine the title be thereto TERM, APRIL v. Tolle.
Titus plaintiff adjudge their rel tween and to rights premises. concluded ative in and to said petition prayer of with that the status a is theretofore maintained, be the adjudicated, property until can sued, the title be of general equitable and for relief. a cause action and think the states sustaining demurrer. erred in
that the sustaining defendant’s II. action The court’s plaintiff’s petition dismissing cannot be demurrer upheld by.any or our Practice the authori- under Act subject. with deal the ties petition may as a little ver- the be classed While it nevertheless sets sufficient clearness bose, out constituting his cause action and facts facts, entitle to the true, ^ieh if Necessary Allegations. sought. relief Story, plead on Mr. in his admirable treatise good ing, requirements states bill follows: [the bill] show, with reasonable should, therefore, “It plaintiff; certainty, rights manner injured; person done; he is whom place, time, circumstances of the manner material particulars in which he wants incidents; and other words, the court.or in other tbe relief assistance [Story’s prayer Equity seeks; therefor.” which he Pleading Ed.), p. (10 Spelling Injunction, sec. Spaulding Edina, sec. R. sec. S. App. 68.] Mo. c. l. supra, all that statute,
Under is good is, of action the facts consti- cause state plain language tuting must be set it forth and concise repetition. unnecessary without supra, Spaulding it is said: “But Edina, In say general such statement be suf- it if safe contending party ficiently to inform what definite upheld.” pleading should on, the be relied *5 SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI, In very things, nature could be rule not purpose petition, otherwise, since fundamental aof stating sufficiently action, a cause of is to advise the opposite party of the made and out of demand what facts such arises. demand The authorities all are one way point multiply on the support and to citations purpose. would thereof serve no useful injunction sought III. The was, above stated, as quiet brought incidental to action to purpose having for the the court maintain the status jun quo In until ction. the title could be adjudicated. plaintiff was entitled That injunction questioned. [R. have such cannot be S. 1909, Cyc. p. Cope, 740; sec. 2515; Webb v. 192 S. W. l. Wadlow, c. Tucker v. l. c. S. W. Pom eroy’s (4 Ed.), Equity par. p. Jurisdiction High Injunctions, pars. 574.] 372. and sustaining rule erred said de- murrer and reverse remand the cause circuit directions the order heretofore made sustaining plaintiff’s petition same set aside and that be injunction temporary restraining and the order things therewith made connection be reinstated occupied they to the status restored before said demurrer was sustained that 'said be long in force continued so as maintain pending litigation status thereto between the defendant. It ordered. so
Bailey and White, GG., concur. foregoing opinion PER CURIAM: The Mozijsy, adopted hereby is C., of the court. All judges concur.