Adm'rs of Janis v. Gurno

• Decision Date: 31 October 1836
• Citation: 4 Mo. 458
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court
• Parties: ADM'RS OF JANIS v. GURNO.

4 Mo. 458

ADM'RS OF JANIS

v.GURNO.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

October Term, 1836.

GAMBLE and ALLEN, for Defendant in Error. The question presented by this record is, whether the certificate of the recorder of land titles, set forth in the bill of exceptions, showed any title in the plaintiff's intestate? The negative is maintained by the defendant in error, and the Acts of Congress of 13th June, 1812, p. 160, Land Laws; and of 26th May, 1824, p. 884, id.

MCGIRK, J.

The administrators of A. Janis, brought an action of ejectment against Gurno, for a lot of land in the town of St. Charles. The defendant pleaded not guilty. On the trial the plaintiffs gave in evidence a certificate of the recorder of land titles for Missouri, in substance as follows: “It is hereby certified, that by virtue of the act of Congress, passed the 13th day of June, in the year 1812, entitled an act making further provisions for settling the claims to land in the territory of Missouri. The claims of Antoine Janis, sr., under Joseph Lavara and Nicholas Fay, to a lot lying in St. Charles, containing 240 feet, & c., has been duly confirmed; and that the fact of possession and cultivation required by the act of Congress aforesaid, with the boundaries, & c., have been duly proven according to the act supplementary to the act of 13th June, 1812.” It was also proved that the defendant was at the time of the commencement of the suit, in possession of the premises. This was all the evidence given in the cause. Whereupon the court decided, that the certificate of the recorder of land titles, above set forth, showed no right or title whatever in Janis, and without other documentary evidence, the plaintiff could not recover; which opinion was excepted to, and is now assigned for error. In the argument of the cause, the counsel for the defendants in error, endeavor to support the opinion of the court on the ground that the plaintiffs should have showed their conveyance from Fay and Lavara; and that the fact that the recorder has said the claim of Janis under them is confirmed, cannot help or supply the want of such conveyances. On the other side, the argument is, that the certificate puts a sufficient legal title in the plaintiff, under the act of Assembly, to enable them to maintain the action.

The act of the General Assembly, provides that the action of ejectment may be maintained upon a confirmation made under the laws of the United States against any one in possession, who has not a better title thereto. What shall shall be considered a better title, the act does not define. It surely does not mean that the bare possession of the defendant shall be so considered? We understand then, that the meaning of the act is, that when the plaintiff produces a confirmation of the land to himself, he has made out his case, and will be entitled to recover, unless the defendant can show a better title. What in all cases, or indeed what would be a better title in any case, need not be now decided. But it is said, that in this case, the confirmation is not to Janis, but is to be understood as only being a confirmation to the right owner; and that Lavara and Fay, are shown to be the first owners, the confirmation enures to them unless Janis, will show by other evidence than contained in the certificate, that he is...