Von Phul v. Penn
Supreme Court of Missouri
Error to Pettis Circuit Court. I. The only question involved in the case is whether a party can show such possession as is contemplated in section 62 by showing title to the land. If actual possession, pedis possessio, is necessary, then tracts of land not in the actual possession of either claimant would not be embraced in the provisions of the section.
Read the full summary
Error to Pettis Circuit Court. I. The only question involved in the case is whether a party can show such possession as is contemplated in section 62 by showing title to the land. If actual possession, pedis possessio, is necessary, then tracts of land not in the actual possession of either claimant would not be embraced in the provisions of the section. We contend, on the other hand, that this section was intended by the legislature as a substitute for the old chancery proceeding to “ quiet title,” and that when neither party has actual possession. Here, for instance, is a party living in…
1Opinion of the CourtEwing, Judge
This was a proceeding under section 62, article 6, practice act, to require the defendant to show cause why he should not bring an action to try the title to certain real estate claimed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff alleges that he is in possession of the land and has a title in fee to the same: that defendant makes some claim to the land adverse to the plaintiff, and asks that he be summoned to show cause why he should not bring suit to try the title thereto.
The defendant answered denying the possession and title of plaintiff, and alleging title in fee in himself, and that since 1839, he,…
2Cited by13 opinions
- Lambert v. MurraySupreme Court of Colorado · 1911
- Swayze v. BrideMissouri Court of Appeals · 1889
- Eaton v. GilesSupreme Court of Kansas · 1869
- Dyer v. BaumeisterSupreme Court of Missouri · 1885
- Rutherford v. UllmanSupreme Court of Missouri · 1868
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.