Chaffin v. Clark

Missouri Court of Appeals

Chaffin v. Clark

33 Mo. App. 99, 1888 Mo. App. LEXIS 447

DecidedNovember 27, 1888

StatusPublished

This text of 33 Mo. App. 99 (Chaffin v. Clark) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Chaffin v. Clark, 33 Mo. App. 99, 1888 Mo. App. LEXIS 447 (Mo. Ct. App. 1888).

Pincite

Opinion

Rombauer, P. J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

This action is a statutory proceeding to quiet title. R. S., sec. 3562. The case was tried by the court on the same evidence as the one of the same plaintiffs against Brockmeyer, decided at the present term {ante, p. 92). No instructions were asked or given, but judgment rendered in favor of defendant Clark on the evidence. The only question of law raised on the record before us is, whether the evidence required the trial court to find, as a matter of law, that the plaintiffs were in actual possession of the property, since it is conceded that such possession is necessary to maintain this action. Von Phul v. Penn, 31 Mo. 335 ; Dyer v. Baumeister, 87 Mo. 134.

As we have already decided in the Brockmeyer ease tha¡t the finding of the court that plaintiffs were hot in possession of the property, either in person or by tenant, was not erroneous, it results that the judgment in this case, based upon that fact, must likewise' be affirmed. All the judges concurring, it is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Rombauer, P. J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

This action is a statutory proceeding to quiet title. R. S., sec. 3562. The case was tried by the court on the same evidence as the one of the same plaintiffs against Brockmeyer, decided at the present term {ante, p. 92). No instructions were asked or given, but judgment rendered in favor of defendant Clark on the evidence. The only question of law raised on the record before us is, whether the evidence required the trial court to find, as a matter of law, that the plaintiffs were in actual possession of the property, since it is conceded that such possession is necessary to maintain this action. Von Phul v. Penn, 31 Mo. 335 ; Dyer v. Baumeister, 87 Mo. 134.

As we have already decided in the Brockmeyer ease tha¡t the finding of the court that plaintiffs were hot in possession of the property, either in person or by tenant, was not erroneous, it results that the judgment in this case, based upon that fact, must likewise' be affirmed. All the judges concurring, it is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

33 Mo. App. 99, 1888 Mo. App. LEXIS 447, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chaffin-v-clark-moctapp-1888.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack