possession requirement in Missouri

2004"In the case of automobiles the full effect of the exclusive possession rule is tempered by evidence of equal access by persons, other than the owner, to the vehicle.” Id. 4 .

2002Bowyer, 693 S.W.2d at 848 .

2021See Williams, 467 S.W.3d at 841 (quoting Wilson, 409 S.W.3d at 495 ); Chamberlain, 372 S.W.3d at 29 ; P.M.

2014Id.

2009The actual possession requirement "is less strict for wild undeveloped land than it is for developed property, because the nature, location and potential uses for the property may restrict the type of affirmative acts of ownership." Id. "'Where the claimant occupies land without color of title, in order to prevail, he must show physical possession of the entire area claimed."" Shuffit, 13 *238 S.W.3d at 335 (quoting Teson, 561 at 126) (emphasis added).

2006Id. (quoting Johnson, 81 S.W.3d at 215 ).

2006Id. (quoting Johnson, 81 S.W.3d at 215 ).

1968This possession would not only bar a recovery by Voteau, but it extinguished his title and conferred it upon the plaintiff.” In the now leading case of Auldridge v. Spraggin, 349 Mo. 858 , 163 S.W.2d 1042 , the record owner of a lot, “which includes the strip in question,” had, in 1939, successfully prosecuted an action in ejectment against the plaintiff-Auldridges’ grantor.

1968This possession would not only bar a recovery by Voteau, but it extinguished his title and conferred it upon the plaintiff.” In the now leading case of Auldridge v. Spraggin, 349 Mo. 858 , 163 S.W.2d 1042 , the record owner of a lot, “which includes the strip in question,” had, in 1939, successfully prosecuted an action in ejectment against the plaintiff-Auldridges’ grantor.

1961As supporting the exclusive possession requirement, also see State v. Belcher, 136 Mo. 135 , 37 S.W. 800 [1]; State v. Prunty, 276 Mo. 359 , 208 S.W. 91, 94 [2]; State v. Wyre, Mo., 87 S.W.2d 171 , 173[1]; State v. Denison, 352 Mo. 572 , 178 S.W.2d 449, 453 [6]; and State v. Oliver, 355 Mo. 173 , 195 S.W.2d 484, 485 [1], 486[6, 7].

1961As supporting the exclusive possession requirement, also see State v. Belcher, 136 Mo. 135 , 37 S.W. 800 [1]; State v. Prunty, 276 Mo. 359 , 208 S.W. 91, 94 [2]; State v. Wyre, Mo., 87 S.W.2d 171 , 173[1]; State v. Denison, 352 Mo. 572 , 178 S.W.2d 449, 453 [6]; and State v. Oliver, 355 Mo. 173 , 195 S.W.2d 484, 485 [1], 486[6, 7].

1957In Heynbrock v. Hormann, 256 Mo. 21 , 164 SW. 547, 550, the court said, “It would be a solecism to say such a party was required to show that the possession was under a claim of right, and to say that evidence that he had asserted such a claim of right was inadmissible.” The statements which indicated intention to charge and be paid commenced shortly after the beginning period during which the services were rendered and are contemporaneous therewith.

1930A possession under claim of ownership taken after the statute went into effect, would not have set the Statute of Limitations in operation as against the city, and can avail the defendant nothing, even if he showed privity existed between himself and the person *Page 378 taking such possession. [Dice v. Hamilton, 178 Mo. 81 ; Brown v. City of Carthage, 128 Mo. 10 ; City of Columbia v. Bright, 179 Mo. 441 ; Moore v. Helvy, 235 Mo. 443 .] Upon the question of title by adverse possession, the fact that the store mentioned stood up to where the extended line of defendant's possession would be, ava

1930If the owner had actual knowledge of the adverse possession and claim, openness and notoriety become unimportant. [Dausch v. Crane, 109 Mo. 323 , 336-7, 19 S.W. 61 .] But it is not the mere occupancy or possession of land which must be known to the true owner in order to prejudice his rights, but its adverse character.

1930A possession under claim of ownership taken after the statute went into effect, would not have set the Statute of Limitations in operation as against the city, and can avail the defendant nothing, even if he showed privity existed between himself and the person *Page 378 taking such possession. [Dice v. Hamilton, 178 Mo. 81 ; Brown v. City of Carthage, 128 Mo. 10 ; City of Columbia v. Bright, 179 Mo. 441 ; Moore v. Helvy, 235 Mo. 443 .] Upon the question of title by adverse possession, the fact that the store mentioned stood up to where the extended line of defendant's possession would be, ava

1930A possession under claim of ownership taken after the statute went into effect, would not have set the Statute of Limitations in operation as against the city, and can avail the defendant nothing, even if he showed privity existed between himself and the person *Page 378 taking such possession. [Dice v. Hamilton, 178 Mo. 81 ; Brown v. City of Carthage, 128 Mo. 10 ; City of Columbia v. Bright, 179 Mo. 441 ; Moore v. Helvy, 235 Mo. 443 .] Upon the question of title by adverse possession, the fact that the store mentioned stood up to where the extended line of defendant's possession would be, ava

1930A possession under claim of ownership taken after the statute went into effect, would not have set the Statute of Limitations in operation as against the city, and can avail the defendant nothing, even if he showed privity existed between himself and the person *Page 378 taking such possession. [Dice v. Hamilton, 178 Mo. 81 ; Brown v. City of Carthage, 128 Mo. 10 ; City of Columbia v. Bright, 179 Mo. 441 ; Moore v. Helvy, 235 Mo. 443 .] Upon the question of title by adverse possession, the fact that the store mentioned stood up to where the extended line of defendant's possession would be, ava

1891Gaines v. Saunders, 87 Mo. 557 -564. 3.