Brown v. Crawford Cnty.

• Decision Date: 31 July 1844
• Citation: 8 Mo. 640
• Parties: BROWN v. CRAWFORD COUNTY.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

8 Mo. 640

BROWN

v.CRAWFORD COUNTY.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

July Term, 1844.

APPEAL FROM CRAWFORD CIRCUIT COURT.

FRISSELL and MILLER, for Appellant.

W. G. MINOR, for Appellee. 1. To sustain the judgment of the Circuit Court, the appellee relies on the provisions of the act of the General Assembly of this State, entitled: “An act to provide for the sale of Township School Lands, in Saline and other counties,” approved, February 25, 1835, Statutes, 571: and it is contended, that this act is neither repealed nor abrogated by the general law in relation to Schools and School Lands, approved March 19, 1835; ibid. 561. 2. This local law, being for the public convenience, should be liberally construed. The intention of the Legislature, as well as the remedial character of the act, may be readily gathered from its context, spirit and phraseology. Seventh and eighth rules in Bac. Abr. title Statutes, 389. 3. Under the rule of construction prescribed in Stat. Mo. 383, title Laws, § 28, both of the acts in the case now at bar should be deemed to have been passed on the same day. 4. Under a legitimate construction of the two acts, the demurrer was properly sustained. The appellee had no claim to the equitable interference of the Circuit Court, on the grounds that a patent could not issue from the auditor of public accounts, for this office could have no cognizance of the matter, until it had been certified to him by the County Court that the purchase-money had been fully paid. Stat. Mo. §§ 4, 5, p. 563. 5. There was no error in the judgment on the pleas. 6. The appellant's recourse to the equity jurisdiction of the court operated as a release of the errors (if any) in the proceeding at law. Stat. Mo. 314, § 10. 7. In chancery, a demurrer, although general, is good, provided it apply to the whole bill, otherwise it must clearly express the particular parts of the bill demurred to. Mitford, 214. 8. The record in this case is too imperfect, obscure, and irregular for the court to act on it. 2 Terr. Laws, 265; Stat. Mo. 571, 561; 2 Atk. R. 150; 1 Barrow, 447; Bac. Abr title Statutes, 382; 1 Blacks. Com. in notes, 40; Com. Dig. title Parliament, 378; 1 Tucker's Com. 17; 2 Wash. 296; 4 Gill and Johns. 4; Coke's R. Forbes' case, 6, 63; ibid. Magdalen Coll., 6, 74; Bac. Abr. title Statutes, 389; Stat. of Mo. 383; ibid. 714; Mitford's Ch. Pl. 214.

NAPTON, J.

This was a bill in chancery to enjoin proceedings at law, by the county of Crawford against the appellant. The bill sets forth, that in the year 1838, the complainant purchased four forty-acre tracts of land, in section sixteen, township 37, range 3 west, lying in the county of Crawford, and being school lands for the use of the inhabitants of said township; that the price given for the said lands was $430; that the lands were purchased at a public sale, conducted by the sheriff of said county; that the complainant executed his bonds for the said purchase-money, which bonds were renewed from time to time, adding the interest, until they amounted to $640 86. These bonds, as the complainant alleged, became due on the 9th of February, 1843, on which day the complainant executed a mortgage of the said land to the county of Crawford, for the use of the inhabitants of said township, conditioned for the payment of said sum of $640 86, payable in one year from the date thereof. The bill further states, that said mortgage is about to be foreclosed, and a judgment is expected to be entered against complainant at the term when this bill was filed. The bill then alleges that when the petition for the sale of the said sixteenth section was presented to the County Court, there were not fifteen free white householders in said township, in fact not exceeding thirteen; that there are no prairies in said township and said township is reasonably fertile, &c. The complainant further alleged, that he applied to the County Court of said county, to make out and forward to said auditor of public accounts an abstract of the lands purchased as above stated, but said court refused to do so, alleging as a reason, that...