Home/Supreme Court of Missouri/Clark v. McAtee

Clark v. McAtee

127 S.W. 37, 227 Mo. 152, 1910 Mo. LEXIS 95
CourtSupreme Court of Missouri
DecidedMarch 31, 1910
StatusPublished
Cited by17 cases

This text of 127 S.W. 37 (Clark v. McAtee) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Clark v. McAtee, 127 S.W. 37, 227 Mo. 152, 1910 Mo. LEXIS 95 (Mo. 1910).

Opinion

WOODSON, J.

This is a suit in ejectment for the recovery of eight feet of ground off of the entire south side of lot four, and ten feet off of the entire south side of lot eight, in block four, in the original town, now city, of Edina, Knox county, Missouri. A trial was had in the circuit court of Knox county, which resulted in a judgment for the plaintiff ; and, after moving unsuccessfully for a new trial and in arrest of judgment, defendants duly appealed the cause to this court.

The petition, in substance, stated that on July 7, 1904 and at all times thereafter, plaintiff was the owner of and entitled to the possession of said tracts of ground; that the defendants afterwards, on said July 7, 1904, entered into the possession thereof, to the.plaintiff’s damage, in the sum of $10. The petition alleges that the value of the monthly rents and profits of said lands is one dollar per month, prays judgment for the possession of said premises, ten dollars damages for the unlawful withholding of same, and one dollar for monthly rents and profits from the rendition of judgment.

Defendants’ answer denies that they were in possession of the premises described in the petition at the date of the commencement of the suit; denies that they withhold the possession of said premises or' any part thereof from plaintiff, and make general denial of the allegations of the petition.

[156]*156Rose Clark, the plaintiff, without objection, testified, in substance, that she was the owner of lots four, five, eight, nine and ten in block four, in the original town of Edina, and had owned and been in possession of them for two years; and that Margaret McAtee, one of the defendants, owned the remaining lots contained in that block, namely, one, two, three, six and seven.

All of the lots are of uniform size, each having a frontage of fifty-two feet and four-fifths with a depth of one hundred and twenty-nine feet and one inch. Plaintiff’s lots constituted, speaking generally, the north half of the block, and defendants ’ the south half. Defendants wished to rebuild a partition fence between their lots and'those of the plaintiff; and, in the discussion of that matter, a controversy arose as to the boundary line between them. The result was each party had the county surveyor of the county to survey their respective lots; but, there being some difference between those surveys, the court ordered the surveyor to make a third survey, known as “Survey No. 77,” of which the following is a copy:

[157]*157

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

Related

Cantrell v. Bank of Poplar Bluff
702 S.W.2d 935 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1985)
Fuller v. Padley
628 S.W.2d 719 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1982)
Carender v. Barry
623 S.W.2d 73 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1981)
Kingsley v. United States
569 S.W.2d 241 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1978)
Grimes v. Armstrong
304 S.W.2d 793 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1957)
City of Marshfield v. Haggard
304 S.W.2d 672 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1957)
Shoup v. AMERICAN TRUST COMPANY
97 S.E.2d 111 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1957)
Ashley v. Williams
281 S.W.2d 875 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1955)
Landers v. Thompson
205 S.W.2d 544 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1947)
Pioneer Cooperage Co. v. Bland and Foster.
75 S.W.2d 431 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1934)
Cordell v. Sanders
52 S.W.2d 834 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1932)
Gee v. Sherman
293 S.W. 789 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1927)
Jones v. Eaton
270 S.W. 105 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1925)
T. L. Wright Lumber Co. v. Ripley County
192 S.W. 996 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1917)
City of Laddonia v. Day
178 S.W. 741 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1915)
Inglehart v. Omaha & Council Bluffs Street Railway Co.
145 N.W. 850 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1914)
Clark v. McAtee
161 S.W. 698 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1913)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
127 S.W. 37, 227 Mo. 152, 1910 Mo. LEXIS 95, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clark-v-mcatee-mo-1910.