Foster v. Evans

Decision Date31 October 1872
Citation51 Mo. 39
PartiesJOHN D. FOSTER AND SAMUEL DENTON, Plaintiffs in Error, v. WILLIAM EVANS, Defendant in Error.
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

Error to Scott Circuit Court.

Louis Houck, for plaintiffs in error.

J. M. Patterson, for defendant in error

ADAMS, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court

This was an action of ejectment to recover possession of a tract of land in the county of Scott. The plaintiffs claim title by virtue of an entry at the United States Land Office at Ironton, Missouri, dated May 17, 1857, made by Abraham Hunter. No patent was, however, shown to have been issued on this entry. The plaintiffs also set up a judgment in ejectment in the name of said Hunter, rendered against the defendant in 1861, for this land, but it was not shown what titles were investigated and passed upon in that ejectment suit. The plaintiffs then gave evidence conducing to show that the defendant had leased this land from them, or one of them, for a year or more, and that he had offered to buy the land from them.

The defendant stood upon his possession, and gave evidence conducing to show that he had been in adverse possession for more than ten years before the commencement of this suit, and evidence conducing to show that he never had leased the land from plaintiffs, and had only offered to buy the land if the plaintiffs had a better title. The defendant also set up the averment that the tract of land in controversy was swamp land, and that it so appeared on the books in the office of the clerk of the County Court, and that, as such, one John W. Carpenter bought the land; and the deed from the county to Carpenter was read in evidence, showing that it was swamp land granted to the State of Missouri by virtue of an act of Congress entitled “An act to enable the State of Arkansas and other States to reclaim the swamp lands within their limits,” approved September 8, 1850.

The court, at the instance of the plaintiffs, instructed that if the defendant rented the premises in controversy from the plaintiffs, then the plaintiffs were entitled to recover. There was conflicting evidence on this question, and the court found for the defendant, and we are not at liberty now to disturb that finding.

The court refused the other instructions asked by plaintiffs. One was that the judgment in the ejectment suit of Hunter against defendant settled this case, and the other was that if the defendant offered to purchase this land from the plaintiffs within ten years...

To continue reading

Request your trial
56 cases
  • Cantrell v. City of Caruthersville
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 13 Junio 1949
    ...... 141 at page 149, 13 S.W. 497 at page 499, "The. well-settled rule of law in this state, notwithstanding an. improvident dictum in Foster v. Evans , 51 Mo. 39, to the contrary, is, actions of. ejectment though between the same parties having the same. defenses concerning the same ......
  • Finch v. Ullmann
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 23 Junio 1891
    ...can be no common source of title when the answer is a general denial and defendant claims title under the statute of limitation. Foster v. Evans, 51 Mo. 39; Charles Patch, 87 Mo. 450; Prior v. Scott, 87 Mo. 303; Miller v. Hardin, 64 Mo. 545. Even the rule as to plaintiff recovering on prior......
  • Andre v. Andre
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 6 Junio 1921
    ...Mo. 468; Marvin v. Elliott, 99 Mo. 616; Ratliff v. Graves, 132 Mo. 468; West v. Bretell, 115 Mo. 653; Mather v. Walsh, 107 Mo. 121; Foster v. Evans, 51 Mo. 39; Horwood Tracy, 118 Mo. 631. (6) Plaintiff must show a complete chain of title from the government to himself or the admitted common......
  • Estes v. Nell
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 6 Julio 1897
    ...10 Wend. 80; Hart v. Steedman, 98 Mo. 452; Kimmel v. Benna, 70 Mo. 62; Avery v. Fitzgerald, 94 Mo. 207; Ekey v. Inge, 87 Mo. 493; Foster v. Evans, 51 Mo. 39; Towns Nims, 20 Am. Dec. 378; Russell v. Place, 94 U.S. 606. (9) If both an equitable and a legal defense were raised and passed upon ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT