Toalson v. Madison

307 S.W.2d 32 (1957)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Houston was the owner of Lots 17 and 18 in Woodland Addition to Columbia, Missouri. Houston conveyed Lot 18 to D and, thereafter, conveyed Lot 17 to Ps. When Houston sold Lot 17 to Ps he showed them the house and lot located at 221 Worley Street which, in fact, is Lot 18, and that he represented to them that it was Lot 17. Houston walked around the house on Lot 18 and showed it and said Lot 18 had previously been sold to D. Ps notified the tenants of Lot 18 to vacate and they moved out. In January 1955, Ps made extensive improvements to the house including the construction of a room, bath, and plumbing, installing gas, papering, painting, lights, and repairing the roof and flooring; the total cost of said improvements was some $900. While improving the property, Ps saw D on the property; but did not know who he was. After the improvements were completed, Ps rented the property, from May 1, until August; for $30 per month. In August, D's son or grandson told Ps that D owned the property. Ps made no further improvements collected no further rents, and voluntarily surrendered possession to D. After learning of his mistake P visited D to seek a settlement and D told him he did not care how much had been spent on the house, that 'there is nothing I can do for you.' At trial, Ps established the costs incurred and also that D was present when many of the improvements were made and said nothing about Ps’ mistake. There was no doubt that D had seen the improvements being built on many occasions and didn't tell Ps to stop. At trial, D contended that since Ps voluntarily surrendered possession, no suit having been filed therefore, they cannot maintain this action under the betterments statute. Ps claimed that this is not an action growing out of the statute, but is an independent action in equity, instituted by Ps after having learned of their mistake in ownership and having voluntarily surrendered possession. The court ruled for D and Ps appealed.