Legal Opinion

Haarstick v. Gabriel

Supreme Court of Missouri

Decided December 22, 1906PublishedCited by 17 opinions

Appeal from Madison Circuit Court.- — Now. Robert A. Anthony, Judge. (1) Respondent’s action should have been dismissed because it was begun and prosecuted in violation of the act of March 6, 1903, Laws 1903, pp. 254-5, and of section 6, Revised Statutes 1899. That act is clearly retrospective in its operation, but required respondent as a condition precedent to bringing this action to set out and tender all past taxes paid by appellants and their immediate or remote…

Read the full summary

Appeal from Madison Circuit Court.- — Now. Robert A. Anthony, Judge. (1) Respondent’s action should have been dismissed because it was begun and prosecuted in violation of the act of March 6, 1903, Laws 1903, pp. 254-5, and of section 6, Revised Statutes 1899. That act is clearly retrospective in its operation, but required respondent as a condition precedent to bringing this action to set out and tender all past taxes paid by appellants and their immediate or remote executors. That act and, section 650, Revised Statutes 1899', on which this action is brought, must be construed together. They…

1Opinion of the CourtValliant, J.

Suit under section 650; Revised Statutes 1899, to quiet title to eighty acres of land in Madison county. The petition is in the usual form; states that plaintiff is the owner in fee of the land described and that defendants claim some title to it, the nature of which plaintiff-does not know. The prayer is that the court ascertain and adjudge the title as between plaintiff and defendants.

The answer denies that plaintiff owns any interest in the land and asserts full title in defendants. It then goes on to state that plaintiff acquired title to the land in 1879, that he then and has ever since…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Burkham v. ManewalSupreme Court of Missouri · 1906
  2. Petring v. Current River Land & Cattle Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1905
  3. Manwaring v. Missouri Lumber & Mining Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1906

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. Hamilton v. LinnSupreme Court of Missouri · 1947
  2. National Aid Life Ass'n v. MurphyCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1934
  3. Gibson v. Chicago Great Western Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1910
  4. Powell v. BowenSupreme Court of Missouri · 1919
  5. Boatmen's National Bank v. FleddermanSupreme Court of Missouri · 1944

12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API