Bd. of President & Dirs. of the St. Louis Pub. Sch. v. Walker
| Decision Date | 31 March 1867 |
| Parties | THE BOARD OF PRESIDENT AND DIRECTORS OF THE ST. LOUIS PUBLIC SCHOOLS, Plaintiff in Error, v. ISAAC WALKER and PATRICK RYAN, Defendants in Error. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Error to St. Louis Land Court.
This was an action brought by plaintiff against the defendants at the March term, 1864, in the St. Louis Land Court, to recover a tract of land containing about thirteen acres in the southern part of the city of St. Louis.
To establish its title, the plaintiff gave in evidence the act of incorporation of the town of St. Louis, dated November 9, 1809; a survey of the outboundary line of the town of St. Louis, commonly known as map X; the act incorporating the plaintiff, and assignment and survey of the premises in controversy by the Surveyor-General to the plaintiff, made in 1861, being survey No. 407 for the St. Louis Public Schools. And the plaintiff proved further that the land in controversy was within the limits of the survey of the boundary line of the town of St. Louis, and that it was within the limits of the line of the corporation of the town of St. Louis as established by order of the St. Louis Common Pleas Court of November 9, 1809.
It was admitted at the trial that the defendants were in possession of the land at the time of the commencement of this action.
The defendants gave in evidence a patent from the United States to Joseph Papin, dated June 15, 1826; also a deed for the land described in the patent from Joseph Papin to Larkin Deaver, and a deed for the same premises to Isaac Walker, the defendant. The defendants also gave evidence tending to show that they had been in possession of the premises sued for more than twenty years before the commencement of this suit. The defendants also gave in evidence, as an outstanding title, the following documents:
1. A petition, dated November 19, 1799, of Joseph Brazeau to Delassus, the Spanish Lieut. Governor of St. Louis, praying for a grant of a tract of land, embracing the premises in controversy, as an addition to his farm.
2. A concession by Delassus of the land described in the petition, order of survey, and a survey made by the Surveyor of the Spanish Government.
3. Proceedings had on the 19th day of July, 1806, before the first Board of Commissioners created to adjust and confirm the claims of the inhabitants of St. Louis to lands therein. Joseph Brazeau presented the concession of Delassus and the Spanish survey, and asked a confirmation of his claim, which was rejected as “being unsupported by actual inhabitation and cultivation, and interfering with a tract of land claimed by the inhabitants of St. Louis as commons.”
4. Proceedings had on the 19th of August, 1811, before the Board. Joseph Brazeau presented his claim for confirmation, which was again rejected.
5. Proceedings had on the 14th of March, 1833, before the Board of Commissioners, created by the act of Congress of July 9, 1832. Brazeau presented his concession, survey, and proof. On November 11, 1833, the Commissioners decided that his claim ought to be confirmed.
6. U. S. survey No. 3,078, in favor of Joseph Brazeau or his legal representatives, made in May, 1857, in pursuance of the act of Congress of July 4, 1836. The boundary lines of this survey embraced the land in controversy, but the certificate of the Surveyor-General, attached to the survey, expressly excludes from it the land in controversy, as land “sold or disposed of by the United States prior to the 4th day of July, 1836,” and the certificate states that for the land thus excluded a certificate of new location was issued.
The defendants rested, and the plaintiff, in rebuttal, gave in evidence:
1. A certified copy of the certificate of re-location issued to Joseph Brazeau for the land excluded from survey 3,078.
2. The certificate of the Register of the Land Office at St. Louis, of the entry made by Joseph Papin of the land covered by his patent. The certificate is dated April 28, 1826.
3. An act of Congress for the relief of Phineas Underwood, approved May 22, 1826, the second section of which reads as follows: “ And be it further enacted, That the time for filing petitions, under the provisions of an act entitled ‘An act enabling the claimants to lands within the limits of the State of Missouri and Territory of Arkansas to institute proceedings to try the validity of their claims,’ shall be and the same is hereby extended to the twenty-sixth day of May, in the year one thousand eight hundred and twenty-eight.”
4. A series of letters of the Commissioner of the General Land Office to the Surveyor-General at St. Louis, showing the practice and rules of the Department, and parol testimony, which, under the ruling of the court, has no bearing on the case here presented.
It was then admitted by the defendants, that the assignment given in evidence by plaintiff and survey No. 407 had been approved and recorded by the Surveyor-General in his office, and that no appeal was taken from his action by any of the parties interested.
The plaintiff then closed, and asked the following instructions:
1. The papers, documents and oral proof produced by plaintiff are prima facie evidence that the land in controversy has been legally surveyed, designated and set apart to the town (now city) of St. Louis for the support of schools therein.
2. The court, sitting as a jury, will find for the plaintiff if the court believes that the documents, papers, plats and surveys, given in evidence are genuine; that the oral testimony offered by plaintiff is true, and that the land in controversy is within the boundaries of the corporation of 1809, within the outboundary of December 8, 1840, and also within School assignment and survey No. 407, read in evidence.
3. If the land embraced within Papin's patent is within the limits of the outboundary survey given in evidence by plaintiff, it was reserved from sale and entry, and the patent is void, although at the time of the entry and the issuing of the patent the land had not been designated and set apart to the town of St. Louis for the support of schools therein.
4. If the land embraced within the entry and patent of Papin, under which defendants claim, lies wholly within the outboundary of St. Louis as established under the authority of the United States pursuant to the first section of the act of June 13, 1812; and if said land lies wholly within the limits of the assignment and survey No. 407, given in evidence by plaintiff, and if such assignment and survey is a genuine document, then the entry of, and patent to, Papin were illegal and void, and no title passed by said entry and patent.
5. The assignment of land and survey No. 407 for the Public Schools, given in evidence by plaintiff, creates a better title than, and must prevail over, any title derived from the patent issued to Papin in the year 1826, given in evidence by defendants.
6. There is no evidence in the cause tending to show that Brazeau's concession for 12 by 30 arpents was confirmed by operation of the act of Congress of June 13, 1812.
7. There is no evidence in the cause tending to show that the land in controversy was, on the 13th of June, 1812, “rightfully owned or claimed,” by Brazeau or his legal representatives within the meaning of the act of Congress of June 13, 1812.
8. The concessions by Delassus to Brazeau and the survey by Soulard, given in evidence by the defendants, do not prove a “rightful ownership or claim” in Brazeau or his legal representatives to the land in controversy within the meaning of the second section of the act of June 13, 1812. To constitute such ““rightful ownership or claim” there must be proof of cultivation, possession or inhabitation prior to December 20, 1803, by Brazeau or those under whom he claimed. And, in the absence of such proof in this case, the defendants have failed to show that the land in controversy was “rightfully owned or claimed” on the 13th day of June, 1812, within the meaning of the second section of the act of June 13, 1812.
9. The concession and order of survey made to Joseph Brazeau by Delassus in 1799, and the survey made in pursuance thereof by Soulard, as given in evidence by defendants, vested no title in Brazeau to the property so surveyed for him.
10. If the land in controversy was surveyed and sold to Papin by the United States prior to July 4, 1836, it was not confirmed to Brazeau by the act of July 4, 1836, although such survey and sale to Papin was not made in conformity with any law of the United States, and although such survey and sale were void as against the title set up by plaintiff.
11. Brazeau's survey having been recommended for confirmation by the Board of Commissioners “according to the concession” and not “according to survey,” the survey by Soulard is not conclusive evidence of the extent of said confirmation, and the Government is not precluded by said survey; and survey No. 3,078, given in evidence by defendants, determines the right of the confirmee and of the defendants in claiming an outstanding title in Brazeau's representatives.
12. Survey 3,078 as approved by the Surveyor-General, given in evidence by defendants, is conclusive and binding on defendants as to the boundaries and quantity of land confirmed; and if the land in controversy is within one of the reservations enumerated in said survey and the certificate thereof, then the confirmation does not embrace the land so enumerated as reserved.
13. The designation of land and survey No. 407 for the Public Schools, given in evidence by plaintiff, creates a better title than, and must prevail over, the title of Brazeau and his representatives, emanating under the act of July 4, 1836, as given in evidence by defendants.
14. If the land in controversy is within the limits of the outboundary and assignment given in evidence by plaintiff, then plaintiff is entitled to recover in the absence of proof of inhabitation, cultivation and possession of the land in controversy...
To continue reading
Request your trial