Heffernan v. Howell

Practice; demurrer: limitations: action to vacate judgment.' Where, in an action to vacate a judgment on the ground that it was fraudulently obtained, and to divest defendants of their title acquired under the judgment, it appeared on the face of the petition that more than twenty years had elapsed since the right of action accrued, a demurrer to it was properly sustained, no reason being alleged why the action was not commenced within the tim® prescribed by the statute.

Appeal from Greene Cireidt Court. — Hon. W. F. Geig-eb, Judge. It is contended by the appellant that, if the allegations in his petition are true, as stated, which by the pleadings are confessed, no title passed, and that Charles Carlton, nor his grantees, are, or could be, in any way affected by the statute of limitations, and they, or any one of them, could not be charged with laches if the , appellant, or his grantors, through long lapse of time had failed to assert his title. It could only be done by enclosing the lands, which are still remaining uninelosed. But the appellant now deems it safer to his title that the defendant’s cloud of title be removed. The presumptions of law are, that the plaintiffs are in legal possession. Constructive possession always follows the person who has the legal title. Griffith v. Bchwenderman, 27 Mo. 412. When premises are wholly vacant, adverse possession follows the true title. Turner v. Baker, 64 Mo. 218. The law deems every person to be in the legal seizure and possession of land to which he has a perfect and complete title; and the seizure and possession are co-extensive with his right, and continue until he is ousted by an actual possession in another, under a claim of right. Angelí on Limitations, 376, 377.