Palmer v. Jones

• Citation: 85 S.W. 1113,188 Mo. 163
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
• Decision Date: 02 July 1904
• Parties: PALMER et al. v. JONES.<SMALL><SUP>*</SUP></SMALL>

85 S.W. 1113

188 Mo. 163

PALMER et al. v. JONES.^*

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.

July 2, 1904.

SWAMP LANDS — COUNTIES — ACTIONS — LIMITATIONS — LACHES.

1. Gen. St. 1865, c. 191, § 7, providing that nothing contained in any statute of limitations shall extend to any lands granted or appropriated to any public, pious, or charitable use, or to any lands belonging to the state, did not prevent section 1, limiting actions to recover lands to 10 years, from applying to swamp land patented by the state to a county, while held and owned by the county.

2. The doctrine of estoppel and laches, with reference to an action to recover swamp lands patented by the state to a county, applies to the county to the same extent as to individuals.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Butler County; J. L. Fort, Judge.

Action by Henry U. Palmer and another against John A. Jones. From a judgment in favor of defendant, plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.

Wm. N. Barron, for appellants. Phillips, Phillips & Thomas, for respondent.

BURGESS, J.

This is an action of ejectment for the possession of lot 4 of the southwest quarter of section 29, township 22 north, range 8 east, in Butler county. The petition is in the usual form, and the answer a general denial. The trial resulted in a judgment for defendant, from which plaintiff, after unsuccessful motion for new trial, appeals.

The land in question is what is known as swamp land, and was patented to Butler county by the state of Missouri on the 17th day of February, 1870. Plaintiffs showed paper title in themselves, through mesne conveyances, from said county. Defendant showed actual, continuous, open, notorious, and adverse possession of the land in himself and those under whom he claims title for more than 10 years before the institution of this suit, so that the only question presented for determination on this appeal is as to whether the statute of limitations relied upon by defendant was a bar to this action. Plaintiffs' contention is that said statute does not run against the county, and in holding otherwise the court committed error.

Section 1, Gen. St. 1865, p. 745, c. 191, which was in force at the time those under whom defendant claims title took actual possession of the land, in 1870 or 1875, provides that "no action for the recovery of any land, tenements or hereditaments, or for the recovery of the possession thereof, shall be commenced, had or maintained by any person * * * unless it appear that the plaintiff, his ancestor, predecessor or grantor or other person under whom he claims, was seised or possessed of the premises in question, within ten years before the commencement of such action." It is perfectly plain that this statute is broad enough to include all lands, of every kind and description, not excluded from its operation by section 7 of the same statute. This section provides that "nothing contained in any statute of limitations shall extend to any lands given, granted, sequestered or appropriated...