Hannibal & St. Joseph Railroad v. Frowein

63 S.W. 500, 163 Mo. 1, 1901 Mo. LEXIS 334
Supreme Court of Missouri·Decided May 21, 1901·Published·Cited by 13 cases

Opinion

GANTT, J.

This is an action of ejectment for two tracts of land, each located within and constituting a part of a certain tract containing 21.76 acres lying partly in fractional section two and partly in fractional section 3, township 59, range 5, west, in Marion county, Missouri, a strip of ground five hundred feet in width along the west bank of the Mississippi river and extending westwardly a distance of 2,209 feet.

The petition is in the usual statutory form. The answer, while lengthy, is necessary to a proper understanding of the respective claims of the parties and is as follows:

“Defendant, for answer to the petition of plaintiff filed herein, admits that plaintiff is a corporation and also admits that defendant is in the possession of the two pieces of ground described in said petition, but denies each and every other allegation contained in said petition.

“Defendant further answering, states, that on the fifteenth day of April, A. D. 1859, and for three or more years prior thereto, there was and had been existing a railroad company, duly incorporated and organized under the laws of the State of Missoxiri, by the name of the Quincy & Palmyra Railroad Company, and that at and during said times John Taylor was the owner in fee of all the land described in plaintiff’s petition, and also the owner of a ferry franchise, and was engaged in running ferryboats for the transportation of passengers and freight for hire from the city of Quincy in the State of Illinois across the Mississippi river to the town of West Quincy in the State of Missouri, where he had a ferry dock and other appliances and facilities on said land for [7]*7landing ferryboats and discharging* passengers and 'freight thereon. Defendant further states that on the said fifteenth day of April, 1859, said John Taylor remised and released to the said Quincy & Palmyra Railroad Company an easement or right of way over and through the said entire tract of 24.76 acres of ground described in the petition of the plaintiff, from the westerly part of said tract to the said ferry landing on the bank of the Mississippi river, said right of way to be used only and strictly for railroad purposes, and defendant avers that said grant was made by the said John Taylor and accepted by the said Quincy & Palmyra Railroad Company, in consideration for and in pursuance of a contract made by and between them, by which the said Quincy & Palmyra Railroad Company contracted and agreed to locate, construct and operate a railroad over and across the said tract of land to the said ferry landing, and would operate, use, and run said railroad in connection with said ferryboats so owned and run by the said John Taylor as aforesaid, and that the said, parties to said contract and agreement would each and reciprocally receive from, and deliver to, the other, at said ferry landing, and would transport therefrom, on their several lines of transportation, all of the freight and passengers so carried as aforesaid by them thereto.

“Defendant further states that said Quincy & Palmyra Railroad Company did, in pursuance of said contract and agreement, locate and construct a railroad over and across the tract of 24.76 acres of ground to the said ferry landing and did operate and run the same in connection with said ferry from the latter part of the year 1859 to the latter part of the year 1868, in which latter year the plaintiff bought of the said Quincy & Palmyra Railroad Company the latter’s said railroad, together with all the franchises, privileges and property owned in connection therewith and became obligated for all [8]*8the duties and bound by all the contracts and agreements made by the said Quincy & Palmyra Eailroad Company, and particularly the contract and agreement so as aforesaid made with said John Taylor.

“Defendant further states that when plaintiff became the purchaser of said Quincy & Palmyra Eailroad as aforesaid, plaintiff was, and long prior thereto had been, a railroad corporation engaged in operating and running its railroad from Hannibal to St. Joseph and Kansas City, and over the said Quincy & Palmyra Eailroad to said ferry landing, all in Missouri, by and under whose laws it was duly organized as such corporation, and at said time plaintiff took up and .removed from said tract of 24.76 acres of ground all of the ties, rails, tracks, sidetracks, switches, cars, locomotives and every other appliance used in operating and running said Quincy & Palmyra railroad over said tract of land, and sold its depots, freight houses and every other structure used by said railroad on the said tract of land, and then abandoned the use and control of said 24.76 acres of land as formerly had and made of same by the said Quincy & Palmyra Eailroad Company and plaintiff, and plaintiff located a railroad over and across another and entirely different tract of land, and made a connection of said last railroad with a railroad bridge across the said Mississippi river about one-half mile north of said ferry landing and one quarter of a mile north of said tract of 24.76 acres of land, and thereafter there was no connection of any railroad with said ferry, nor was either passengers or freight transported to or received at said ferry landing from any railroad, and plaintiff ever thereafter transported the freight and passengers carried by its said railroad and destined for either side of the Mississippi river, across the same on said railroad bridge. Whereupon, whatever right, title or interest, use or easement was granted >as aforesaid by the said John Taylor to the said [9]*9Quincy & Palmyra Railroad Company reverted to the grantor, and he then and there entered into the actual occupation and possession of the said 24.76 acre tract of land and he and his grantee have and has been and remained in such possession ever since such entry.

“Defendant further states that he is the owner in fee of all the land described in plaintiffs petition by a conveyance and intermediate conveyances from John Taylor down to him, and he further states that he, and those under whom he claims, have been in the actual, adverse, exclusive, continuous, visible, open, notorious and hostile possession of all of said lands, including the two pieces thereof described in plaintiffs petition, for more than ten years next before the institution of this suit, and defendant avers that he and those under whom he claims said land, have been in such possession for more than twenty-five years next before the commencement of this suit.

“Wherefore, defendant says that plaintiff ought not to recover the possession of said lands or any part thereof, and having fully answered, he asks to be allowed to go hence with judgment for his costs herein.”

To which answer plaintiff filed the following reply: “Now comes the above named plaintiff and for reply to the new matter set up in the reply, denies each any every statement and allegation thereof.”

The finding and judgment of the circuit court was for the defendant,- and the plaintiff appeals.

The evidence developed the following facts:

The Hannibal & St. Joseph Railroad Company was incorporated by a special act of the Legislature of Missouri, February 16, 1847. By the special act approved March 2, 1867, it was authorized to purchase and own the railway and property of the Quincy & Palmyra Railroad Company.

In the year 1859, Captain John Taylor was the owner of [10]

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

Hannibal & St. Joseph Railroad v. Frowein, 63 S.W. 500, 163 Mo. 1, 1901 Mo. LEXIS 334 (Mo. 1901).

63 S.W. 500 (Hannibal & St. Joseph Railroad v. Frowein) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Little v. Browning
287 Mo. 278 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1921)
Krinard v. Westerman
216 S.W. 938 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1919)
Cleveland & P. Ry. v. Ward
30 Ohio C.C. Dec. 642 (Cuyahoga Circuit Court, 1912)
Gurdon & Fort Smith Railroad v. Vaught
133 S.W. 1019 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1911)
Cytron v. St. Louis Transit Co.
104 S.W. 109 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1907)
Kenefick & Hammond v. Norwich Union Fire Insurance
103 S.W. 957 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1907)
McKee v. Allen
103 S.W. 76 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1907)
D. C. Wise Coal Co. v. Columbia Lead & Zinc Co.
100 S.W. 680 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1907)
Brannock v. St. Louis, Memphis & Southeastern Railroad
98 S.W. 604 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1906)
Haydon v. St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad
93 S.W. 833 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1906)
Heman v. Larkin
83 S.W. 1019 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1904)
Kennefick-Hammond Co. v. Norwich Union Fire Insurance Society
80 S.W. 694 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1904)
Dunaway v. Day
63 S.W. 731 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1901)