Suddarth v. Robertson
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Lincoln Circuit Court. — Hon. E. M Hughes, Judge. • (1) Plaintiff’s paper or record title is perfect. The defendant has no title or even color of title. Perine never.had any title to this land. (2) Plaintiff’s ■ third instruction should have been given.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Lincoln Circuit Court. — Hon. E. M Hughes, Judge. • (1) Plaintiff’s paper or record title is perfect. The defendant has no title or even color of title. Perine never.had any title to this land. (2) Plaintiff’s ■ third instruction should have been given. Stagy v. Co., 56 Mo. 317; Loving v. Harmon, 84 Mo. 123; Farrah v. Heinrich-, 86 Mo. 521. (3) Plaintiff’s fourth instruction should have been given, and the court determined whether the facts proved were sufficient to estop defendant from asserting an adverse possession against the plaintiff. It is not a case where the plaintiff…
1Opinion of the CourtBlack, P. J.
This was an action of ejectment for a small parcel of land containing one or two acres, the exact quantity not being stated. The answer is a general denial and the statute of limitations. The reply is a general denial and matter set up by way of an estoppel in pais.
The plaintiff put in evidence certified copies of portions of the tract and plat books of the local land *290office. The copy of the tract book shows that, in 1830, Nicholas Perine purchased the northwest fractional quarter of section 34, etc., containing 72.05 acres; and that, in 1850, James Hines purchased the northwest fractional…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Allen v. SalesSupreme Court of Missouri · 1874
3Cited by15 opinions
- Kostuba v. MillerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1897
- Conley v. Crown Coach CompanySupreme Court of Missouri · 1942
- Dobyns v. Bay State Beneficiary Ass'nSupreme Court of Missouri · 1898
- Falvey v. HicksSupreme Court of Missouri · 1926
- Swanson, Inc. v. Central Surety & InsuranceSupreme Court of Missouri · 1938
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.