Brown v. Brown
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Macon Circuit Court. — Hon. Andrew Ellison, Judge. (1) Under the pleadings and evidence the finding ought to be for the plaintiff, as the statute of limitation will not run. Moore v. Harris, 91 Mo. 622; Wilson v. Albert, 89 Mo. 537 ; Anderson v. McPike, 86 Mo. 299. (2) The statute of limitation cannot be worked as a bar where the occupancy relied upon to support it is neither adverse, nor accompanied by any act showing a claim of exclusive ownership.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Macon Circuit Court. — Hon. Andrew Ellison, Judge. (1) Under the pleadings and evidence the finding ought to be for the plaintiff, as the statute of limitation will not run. Moore v. Harris, 91 Mo. 622; Wilson v. Albert, 89 Mo. 537 ; Anderson v. McPike, 86 Mo. 299. (2) The statute of limitation cannot be worked as a bar where the occupancy relied upon to support it is neither adverse, nor accompanied by any act showing a claim of exclusive ownership. The defendant has no color ol title upon which to rest an adverse title. Statute of limitation to avail must be under color of…
1Opinion of the CourtBrace, J.
This is an action in ejectment to recover eighty acres of land in Macon' county, commenced August 2, 1887; the plaintiff and defendant are mother and son. The petition is in common form. The answer admits that the paper title is in plaintiff by deed from himself to her made in the year 1864, and sets up the statute of limitations and an equitable defense, in substance, that he executed the deed to her at her request - without any consideration, upon the understanding and agreement that she was to hold the legal title in trust for him so as to secure to him and his family a home against the…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Lancaster v. NeffMissouri Court of Appeals · 2002
- Rottink v. NagleSupreme Court of Missouri · 1918
- Jonathan Lukefahr, ex ux. v. Carol Taylor, et ux.Missouri Court of Appeals · 2023