14 Mo. 420 (Mo. 1851), Boone v. Moore
|Citation:||14 Mo. 420|
|Opinion Judge:||NAPTON, J.|
|Party Name:||BENJAMIN BOONE ET AL. v. JAMES D. MOORE.|
|Attorney:||CAMPBELL, GLOVER & WELLS, for Plaintiffs. COALTER, for Defendant.|
|Court:||Supreme Court of Missouri|
APPEAL FROM ST. CHARLES CIRCUIT COURT.
I. The confirmation of this tract of land was to the man who exhibited it to the board of commissioners as his property and procured its confirmation, and not to David Cole the original grantee who had long before parted with the title, and never set up any claim to it. See Bissell v. Penrose's Heirs, lately decided by the Supreme Court of the United States.
II. It was not necessary for the plaintiffs to produce the original papers constituting the chain of title from Cole to Richardson, but for the purposes of this suit it was sufficient to produce the confirmation procured at the instance and for the benefit of Jesse Richardson, and the conveyance from Richardson and wife to plaintiffs.
III. The copies of the deeds from Cole to Mackay, and from Mackay to Richardson were read to the jury without objection, and do make out a perfect chain of title from Cole to Richardson.
IV. The instruction given by the court to the jury was not warranted by the testimony given in the cause.
V. The instruction given by the court is too broad, and takes the whole case from the jury and leaves nothing for them to decide.
VI. The evidence shows that the defendant claimed the land under Zachariah Moore, as his administrator, who held it by virtue of a title bond from Richardson and wife--that Z. Moore had assigned the title bond to John W. Boone, the father of the plaintiffs, and, that in conformity to that title bond assignment, Jesse Richardson and wife conveyed the land to said John W. Boone. Under these circumstances, it appears that both parties claim the title derived from Z. Moore, and that the title of said Moore was divested in favor of said Boone; and thus the defendant is precluded from going beyond the title of said Z. Moore, and he has given no evidence to impair the validity of the assignment from Z. Moore to John W. Boone, and the deed from Richardson and wife to plaintiffs. In this cause it appears, that the land was confirmed at the instance and as the property of Jesse Richardson, assignee of James Mackay, who was assignee of David Cole. The land was granted to D. Cole in the in the year 1798--the evidence shows that he cultivated it. The deed of transfer from him to Mackay is dated in July, 1799, and it does not appear that D. Cole ever afterwards set up any claim whatever to this land; he took no steps to have it confirmed, but long before the transfer of Louisiana to the United States, he had ceased to be the owner or claimant of said land. He obtained the land in St. Louis district, conveyed to him by Mackay, and with it he appears to have been fully contented, and to have left the land now in controversy to his assignee. In September, 1803, the land was sold by Mackay to Jesse Richardson who thus became the owner thereof, before the country was transferred to the United States. When the United States became the owner of the country, the land in controversy was the property of Jesse Richardson, land he was the person to whom the government was bound to confirm the same. In the year, 1805, the survey of the land was made by Mackay, at the request and as the property of Jesse Richardson, and on the survey it is marked as the property of said Richardson. Neither Cole nor Mackay ever set up any claim to the land after the transfers made to them, and Mackay afterwards surveyed the same as the property of Richardson, and appeared before the first board of commissioners as a witness in behalf of Richardson, the claimant. From the proceedings of the board of commissioners it appears that Jesse Richardson was the first and only claimant of the land--that he exhibited it to the board, claiming it as assignee of James Mackay, the assignee of David Cole--that with it he exhibited the original petition and concession--the certificate and part of survey made at his instance in 1805--a copy of the deed from Cole to Mackay, made in 1799 and of the deed from Mackay to Richardson in 1803, and that the proceedings were conducted and the evidence produced in the name of D. Cole. From the whole proceedings it appears, that Jesse Richardson has been the sole...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP