TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Stephens v. Hume

Stephens, in Error v. Hume, in Error

Stephens v. Hume, 25 Mo. 349 (1857)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Missouri · State Highest Courts
Decided
July 15, 1857
Judges
Leonard, Ryland, Scott
Citations
25 Mo. 349
Headnotes
1. The first judgment in an action for partition is interlocutory; a writ of error will not lie thereto. 2. Upon a descent cast no entry or actual possession is necessary in order to entitle a husband to curtesy.
Summary
Error to Moniteau Circuit Court. Reuben Hume died December 1st, 1851, seized of certain tracts of land. He left him, surviving, his widow, Elizabeth Hume, and children, of whom Nancy J. Stephens, the wife oí plaintiff, was one, and grand-children. An undivided interest in said tracts of one-seventh vested in said Nancy, the wife of plaintiff. At the death of said Reuben Hume, issue of the marriage of the said Nancy and plaintiff was living. The wife of plaintiff died before the institution of this suit. Plaintiff prays that an apportionment of said tracts be made and that a life interest of one-seventh, which he alleges has vested in him as tenant by the curtesy, may be set apart to him. Defendants, the widow and heirs of Reuben Hume, set up in their answer that the said widow has ever since the death of Reuben Hume remained in possession of the tracts of land described in the petition, no dower having been assigned to her. The plaintiff demurred to the answer. The demurrer was sustained. I. A tenancy by the curtesy can not be supported by a constructive seizin; there must be an actual seizin in the wife during the coverture, the birth of a living child, and the (death of both child')and mother during such seizin. ‘(Mercer v. Lessee, 1 How. 54; 4 Kent, Com. 28; R. C. 1845, p. 439, 421.) I. The widow’s quarantine does not affect the inheritance of the heirs or any estate incident to it. In point of tenure the widow holds of the heirs, and until the assignment of dower she has no estate in the lands, being neither joint tenant nor tenant in common with the heirs. (4 Kent Com. 62; McOlanahan v. Porter, 10 Mo. 751; 3 Marsh. 1113.) Descents with us depend, not on actual seizin, but on the statute regulating descents, and after a descent cast no entry or other act is necessary in order to entitle a husband to curte-sy in his wife’s land. (Reaume v. Chambers, 22 Mo. 36 ; Harvey v. Wickham, 23 Mo. 112.)

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Scott

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Scott, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court.

This writ of error was prematurely sued out, as there was no final judgment in the cause. This was a proceeding in partition, and in such there are two judgments — the one interlocutory, and the other final. The first is quod partitio fiet inter partes de tenementis, upon which a writ or commission goes, commanding that partition be made; and upon the return of this writ or commission executed, if the proceedings are approved by the court, the second judgment is given quod partitio firma et stabilis in perpetuum teneatur. This is the principal judgment, and before it is given no writ of error does lie. (Gudgell & Austin v. Mead and others, 8 Mo. 55 .) This writ must then be dismissed.

In the case of Reaume v. Chambers, 22 Mo. 54 , it was held that the actual seizin of the wife was not necessary to entitle the husband to curtesy. (1 Hill, on Real Prop. 76, 77.) The permission given by the statute to the wife to remain in possession of her deceased husband’s mansion house, *351 and tbe messuages or plantation thereto belonging, does not affect the right to curtesy. Such possession is not adverse to the heirs of the husband. Writ dismissed;

Judge Ryland concurring; Judge Leonard absent.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1858–1859: 11888–1889: 31896–1897: 11898–1899: 11904–1905: 11908–1909: 118582026peak 1888 · 3

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Camp Phosphate Co. v. Anderson48 Fla. 226 (1904)
  2. Mettler v. Miller22 N.E. 529 (Ill. 1889)
  3. Cox v. Boyce54 S.W. 467 (Mo. 1899)
  4. Martin v. Trail43 S.W. 655 (Mo. 1897)
  5. Ivory v. Delore26 Mo. 505 (1858)
  6. Buller v. Linzee100 Mo. 95 (1889)

Most recent

  1. Skallberg v. Skallberg121 N.W. 979 (Neb. 1909)
  2. Camp Phosphate Co. v. Anderson48 Fla. 226 (1904)
  3. Cox v. Boyce54 S.W. 467 (Mo. 1899)
  4. Martin v. Trail43 S.W. 655 (Mo. 1897)
  5. Mettler v. Miller22 N.E. 529 (Ill. 1889)
  6. Todd v. Oviatt7 L.R.A. 693 (Conn. 1889)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
Reaume v. Chambers, 22 Mo. 36 (1855) 23
Gudgell v. Mead, 8 Mo. 53 (1843) 6

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list