77 Mo. App. 272 | Mo. Ct. App. | 1898
This is an action of forcible entry and detainer. The judgment in the circuit court was for defendant.
It appears that Mrs. Warren was the owner of a large tract of farming land in Boone county known as the Dodd and White places, though the dispute here seems to relate to what is called a piece of “corn land”
Since the verdict was for defendant we have made the statement as the evidence in his behalf has tended to show the facts to be. The principal objections urged here relate to the admission of evidence as to the leases and to the instructions.
Plaintiff contends that under the law there should be no question, in an action of this kind, as to the right of possession, but that the sole questiou was whether the plaintiff was in fact m the peaceable possession which was taken from him against his will. And that in such view of the law the leases claimed by both plaintiff and defendant, and defendant’s having disclaimed having a written lease or having disclaimed any interest in the land except the wheat land, was no consequence. Plaintiff is correct in his claim that!|1
The leases and contracts and admission of the parties bore on that question. They had a tendency to show that plaintiff was not in possession and had not so considered that he was, except as to the “wheat land,” which Mrs. Warren or her representative had a right to enter upon and sow in clover. The case is not like where one was in bodily possession of a room or a house and another intruded himself upon him and ousted him-against his will. In such case, nothing more appearing, it might very well be said that the question as to which one had the better right would not figure. But here the question to determine was whether the plaintiff was in possession and the evidence admitted had a tendency to throw light on that question. The law governing cases of this nature is not in dispute. It will be found in the briefs of the parties, and the only questions relate to application to a particular state of case.
Objection is made to some of defendant’s instructions. (The record does not show any were asked by plaintiff.) The expression is used in one of them that defendant’s entry must have keen against the expressed will of plaintiff. It is true that if a forcible entry is made against the
The judgment was manifestly for the right party and it is affirmed.