Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

48 Mo. 378

Rogers v. Miller

Supreme Court of Missouri

Decided August 15, 1871

Supreme Court of Missouri · decided 1871-08-15

The petition alleges that the plaintiffs and defendants — that is, those whose husbands are joined with them — are the owners of said land, that they hold it in common; and then again it is stated that each owns one-fifth part by an estate of inheritance in fee. These allegations of title are sufficient. It is not necessary to set forth the manner in which the title is derived, or to state the mere evidence in the cause.

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently June 1923

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1871-08-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Currier, Judge,

¶1delivered the opinion of the court.

¶2A demurrer to the petition was sustained, and the plaintiffs bring the cause into this court by writ of error. The suit was for the partition of real estate. The petition shows, that the parties to the suit held the estate as tenants in common ; that the plaintiffs, Mary A. Rogers and Martha J. Dickinson, were the owners in fee of one undivided fifth of the premises, and that the defendants, Charles C. Miller, Paniel E. Miller and George R. Miller, were the owners in fee of three-fifths, each holding one-fifth. The petition makes no reference to the remaining fifth. The statute (2 Wagn. Stat. 967, § 3) requires that the “names, rights and title of all the parties interested ” in the estate sought to be divided shall be set out “ so far as the same can be stated.” The petition before us does not do that; it is entirely silent as to one undivided fifth part of the premises proposed to be partitioned. There is no averment that the owner was unknown, -or that there was any difficulty in pointing out the owner and defining his interest. The petition is defective in its treatment of this fifth interest. Apparently the error arises from assigning one-fifth to Mrs. Rogers and Mrs. Dickinson jointly, instead of assigning one-fifth to each of them. The plaintiffs should have confessed the demurrer and taken leave to amend. They chose, however, to stand by their defective petition, and the judgment declaring it insufficient must be affirmed.

The other judges concur.
/48/mo/378 · .json · Public domain