Handlan v. McManus
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court.—non. Daniel Dillon, Judge. (1) The possession which will put in operation the statute of limitations must be hostile In its inception, or, having been begun in consistency with rightful title, its character must have been changed.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court.—non. Daniel Dillon, Judge. (1) The possession which will put in operation the statute of limitations must be hostile In its inception, or, having been begun in consistency with rightful title, its character must have been changed. Cordon v. Eans, 97 Mo. 587; JBudd v. Collins, 69 Mo.. 129; Zeller v. Eclcert, 4 How. 289; Tyler on Adverse Enjoyment [1 Ed.] p. 876. (2) The possession must have been exclusive, by which is meant occupancy to the exclusion of any acts of possession on the part of the rightful owner. A mixed possession is the possession of Mm…
1Opinion of the CourtBlack, J.
This is an action of ejectment for a strip of land three or four inches wide, on the north line of Locust street, in the city of St. Louis, and extending north one hundred and four feet, to the width of five inches to an alley. The defense made and brought forward on the trial, by the instructions, is the statute of limitations.
On September 18, 1848, Henry Patterson, being the owner of fifty feet front, and extending back to the alley, conveyed the east half to Seth Ranlett, and on the same day he conveyed the west half to Charles Ranlett. The plaintiff derives title to the east half by *128mesne…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Cole v. ParkerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1879
3Cited by12 opinions
- Edwards v. FlemingSupreme Court of Kansas · 1911
- Mather v. WalshSupreme Court of Missouri · 1891
- Coberly v. CoberlySupreme Court of Missouri · 1905
- McGregor v. J. A. Ware Construction Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1905
- State ex rel. Bell v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1911
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.