Boogher v. Neece

• Decision Date: 30 April 1882
• Parties: BOOGHER v. NEECE et al., Appellants.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

75 Mo. 383

BOOGHER

v.NEECE et al., Appellants.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

April Term, 1882.

Appeal from Carroll Circuit Court.--HON. E. J. BROADDUS, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

This was an action of ejectment for a tract of military bounty land in Carroll county. Plaintiff showed a patent from the United States to Wm. Clarke, a soldier of the war of 1812, a certified copy of the record of a deed from Clarke to Romulus Riggs, dated May 19th, 1819, recorded July 24th, 1820, and acknowledged in Pennsylvania on the day of its date in conformity with the laws of the Territory of Missouri, then in force, and a regular chain of conveyances from Riggs to Dameron, from whom plaintiff derived title by inheritance. Among these conveyances was a quit-claim deed from Conway to Barton for the consideration of $1, dated May 16th, 1856, and recorded June 28th, 1866. Defendants, on their part, offered evidence to show title in themselves by adverse possession, and also offered a deed from Conway to Wharton Rector, dated October 26th, 1826, but not recorded in Carroll county until 1873.

Defendants asked and the court refused the following declarations of law:

2. A quit-claim deed passes the title as the grantor therein held it, and the grantee in such deed takes only such title as the grantor could lawfully convey; and the deed from Conway to Barton, dated in 1856, which was read in evidence, being only a quit-claim deed for a nominal consideration passed to said Barton only such title as Conway could at that time lawfully convey; and if Conway prior thereto had conveyed said land to Wharton Rector, then no title passed by the deed to Barton.

3. The deed from Conway to Barton being a quit-claim deed for a nominal consideration cannot prevail over the unrecorded deed from Conway to Rector made prior thereto; and said Barton claiming under such deed cannot be considered an innocent purchaser for a valuable consideration without notice.

4. The record of the deed from Conway to Rector, which was read in evidence, shows that at the commencement of this suit, the title to the land in question was outstanding, and plaintiff cannot recover.

5. If the defendants were in the adverse possession of the land in question under claim and color of title for two years next before the commencement of this suit, the plaintiff cannot recover.

There was a verdict and judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appealed.

L. H. Waters for appellants.

Hale & Eads for respondent.

HOUGH, J.

The record of the deed...