Tuttle v. Davis
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the Greene Circuit Court. — Hon. W. D. Hubbabd, Judge. The defendant, D. E. Davis, was not in possession of the land in controversy at the commencement of this suit and plaintiff cannot recover.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Greene Circuit Court. — Hon. W. D. Hubbabd, Judge. The defendant, D. E. Davis, was not in possession of the land in controversy at the commencement of this suit and plaintiff cannot recover. R. S. 1889, secs. 5087, 5088. The plaintiff cannot maintain this cause of action for the following reasons: To authorize a recovery in the action for forcible entry and detainer, it must appear in evidence that the plaintiff has been ousted from his possession of the premises claimed, and that the defendant is himself in actual possession. The question of title cannot be inquired into.…
1Opinion of the CourtRombauer, P. J.
This is an action of forcible entry and detainer. The plaintiff had judgment both before the justice and the circuit court. The defendant, appealing, assigns for error that there was no substantial evidence that the defendant was in possession of the property at the date of the institution of the suit, but that the uncontroverted evidence disclosed the fact that the defendant’s son was in such possession; also, that the court erred in its declarations of law, and admitted incompetent evidence against the defendant.
The error assigned on the admission of evidence must be disregarded, as the…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Armstrong v. HendrickSupreme Court of Missouri · 1878
- Kirkpatrick v. George Knapp & Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1888
- Blumenthal v. WaughSupreme Court of Missouri · 1862
3Cited by4 opinions
- Loan v. SmithMissouri Court of Appeals · 1898
- St. Louis Brewing Ass'n v. NiederlueckeMissouri Court of Appeals · 1903
- Ranney v. LewisMissouri Court of Appeals · 1914
- Welden Damm v. Myers HinzMissouri Court of Appeals · 1923