Case Name: EARLY et al., Appellants, v. HELMARING et al.
Court: Supreme Court of Missouri
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1902-12-16
Citations: 170 Mo. 597
Docket Number: 
Parties: EARLY et al., Appellants, v. HELMARING et al.
Judges: All of this Division concur.
Reporter: Missouri Reports
Volume: 170
Pages: 597–598

Head Matter:
EARLY et al., Appellants, v. HELMARING et al.
Division Two,
December 16, 1902.
Ejectment: when eeviewabee. Where the suit is in ejectment, and the plaintiff based his claim upon the paper title, and the defendant relied upon the ten-year statute of limitations, and no declarations of law were asked or given, it is impossible to determine upon what theory the trial court found for defendant, whether upon the weakness of plaintiff’s paper title or the length and extent of defendant’s adverse possession, and hence the Supreme Court will not undertake to review the findings and judgment.
Appeal from St. Louis County Circuit Court. — How. Rudolph Hirsel, Judge.
Ahethmed.
James W. Williams and Henry I. Kent for appellants.
Wm. F. Broadhead for respondents.

Opinion:
BURGESS, J.
This is an action of ejectment brought by appellants for the possession of lot 1 of Laclede subdivision, the south part of surveys 2939 and 2844, situated in the county of St. Louis, State of Missouri, township 45, range 6, beginning 166 feet west of the Big Bend road where it intersects with the Manchester road, thence along the south line of Manchester road west 9.85 chains to an avenue; thence south with said avenue 8 chains and 38.25 links to lot 2 of Laclede subdivision. Thence east along the north line of said lot 2, 9 chains and 45.75 links, thence north 6 chains and 57.25 links to the Manchester road, the place of beginning, containing 8.64 arpens, more or less.
The petition is in the nsnal form, and the answer a general denial. The title relied upon by plaintiffs is a paper title, and the defense rely npon the ten-year statute of limitation, claiming that it began to run.'from two or three different periods. No declarations of law were asked or given. There was judgment for defendants, from which plaintiffs appeal. It has been uniformly held by this court that it will not, under such circumstances, undertake to review the finding of the court, as it is impossible for us to know upon what theory the court found for the defendants, whether upon the paper title, or the statute of limitations. [Parkinson v. Caplinger, 65 Mo. 290; Thies v. Garbe, 88 Mo. 146; Renney v. Williams, 89 Mo. 139; Clark v. Railroad, 127 Mo. 255; Hill v. Kingsland, 131 Mo. 648; Sieferer v. St. Louis, 141 Mo. 586; Zimmerman v. Railroad, 156 Mo. 561; Bethune v. Railroad, 139 Mo. 574.]
The judgment is affirmed.
All of this Division concur.