Bishop v. Bloker

• Decision Date: 20 June 1911
• Citation: 235 Mo. 613,139 S.W. 149
• Parties: BISHOP et al. v. BLOKER.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

139 S.W. 149

235 Mo. 613

BISHOP et al. v. BLOKER.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.

June 20, 1911.

QUIETING TITLE (§ 10) — TITLE OF PLAINTIFF — COMMON SOURCE OF TITLE.

Plaintiffs in suit to quiet title to swamp lands must fail where no common source of title was shown, and they failed to show legal or equitable title in themselves; a bare certificate of entry to the land by one under whom they claim being insufficient to show title in them.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Pemiscot County; Henry C. Riley, Judge.

Action by Henry Bishop and others against Carl Bloker. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant appeals. Reversed.

On January 1, 1906, the following petition was filed by plaintiffs in the circuit court of Pemiscot county: "Plaintiffs state that they are the owners in fee and claim title to the following described lands situated in the county of Pemiscot, state of Missouri, to wit: The southwest quarter, the east half of the northwest quarter, and the southwest quarter of the northwest quarter of section eight, in township seventeen north, of range twelve east. Plaintiffs further state that the defendant claims some right, title, interest and estate in and to said lands, and that said claim is adverse and prejudicial to plaintiffs. Wherefore, plaintiffs pray the court to ascertain and determine the estate, title and interest of the parties hereto, respectively, in and to such real estate, and to define and adjudge by its judgment or decree the title estate and interest of the parties, plaintiffs and defendants, severally, in and to such real estate."

On February 20, 1906, defendant filed the following answer: "For such answer defendant admits that he claims some right, title, and interest in and to the lands described in and set out in plaintiffs' petition, but denies that plaintiffs, or any of them, have any right, title, or interest whatever in and to said lands, and that defendant herein is the sole and only owner of all interest, rights, and equities in and to the same."

The cause was tried July 30, 1906. It was agreed that the deed records of Pemiscot county were destroyed by fire in December, 1882.

Plaintiffs introduced the following evidence: (1) Session Acts 1901, pages 251 and 253, inclusively, a special and local law attempting to make Carleton's abstract competent testimony to establish land title in Pemiscot county, Mo. (2) The United States to state of Missouri. Grant by Congress, September 28, 1850, conveying the swamp lands to the state. (3) State of Missouri to Pemiscot county, patent. Conveying the land in controversy and other lands to Pemiscot county. (4) From Carleton's abstract entry No. 3, as follows: "No. 3. Pemiscot county to Matthew Wright. Certificate of entry No. 1,185, dated January 27, 1859; filed in Register's Book 1, page 40, consideration $300. The above certificate of entry conveys the southwest quarter and the east half of the northwest quarter of section 8, township 17, range 12." (5) Entry No. 4 of Carleton's abstracts. Exactly like the above-quoted entry, with the exception it describes another 40 acres of land in controversy. (6) The last will of Matthew Wright. Third item in said will is the only one having any relation to the land in controversy and is as follows: "I do hereby bequeath unto my beloved wife, Elizabeth Ann Wright, for her use, benefit and behoof, during her natural life, all the balance of my real estate and personal property not hereinbefore bequeathed, and after her death, all the property, both real and personal, of which she was seized at the time of her death by virtue of this, my last Will and Testament, Shall be equally divided between the lawful heirs of the said Elizabeth Ann Wright and the lawful heirs of the testator, the aforesaid Matthew Wright."

Also the testimony of Carl Bloker, who testified: "That he was the defendant and claimed this land under a deed from Worst and Brinkerhoff; that some parties claiming to be the heirs of Matthew Wright had sued him and he bought them out in a compromise and let the judgment go for the...