Vantine v. Butler
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Boone Circuit Court. — Now. N. D. Thurmond, Judge. (1) There was no competent testimony tending to prove that the respondent had any right or interest in the land asked to be partitioned, and especially no right to the present possession of hex share in severalty, which is necessary for the party to have before they can maintain partition. 21 Am. & Eng. Ency.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Boone Circuit Court. — Now. N. D. Thurmond, Judge. (1) There was no competent testimony tending to prove that the respondent had any right or interest in the land asked to be partitioned, and especially no right to the present possession of hex share in severalty, which is necessary for the party to have before they can maintain partition. 21 Am. & Eng. Ency. Law, 1151. (a). Partition may be maintained when the party is disseized who brings the suit, but even where that is the law, there must be a present right of entry, (b). While the appeal did not suspend the judgment entered…
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION.
I
BOND, J.
(After stating the facts as above):-
The first error assigned in the brief of appellants is that the decree below was not supported by competent evidence tending to prove that respondent had any right or interest in the land to be partitioned or present right of possession to a share thereof in severalty.
*450Final Judgment. The appellants are in no position to complain of the sufficiency of the evidence to show the heirship of the plaintiff as, a child of the deceased John Butler. That issue was determined in respondent’s favor in a suit brought by her against them and others for…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Burgess v. O'DonoghueSupreme Court of Missouri · 1886
- Boyer ex rel. McGee v. DivelySupreme Court of Missouri · 1875
- Breidenstein v. BertramSupreme Court of Missouri · 1906
- Missouri Pacific Railway Co. v. AtkisonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1885
- Ritter v. Democratic Press Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1878
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Thompson v. Farmers Exchange BankSupreme Court of Missouri · 1933
- State Ex Rel. Hall v. WolfMissouri Court of Appeals · 1986
- Wilcox Trux, Inc. v. RosenbergerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1926
- Barker v. HayesSupreme Court of Missouri · 1941
- Missouri Division of Employment Security v. Labor & Industrial Relations CommissionMissouri Court of Appeals · 1981