Chapman v. Templeton
| Decision Date | 31 October 1873 |
| Citation | 53 Mo. 463 |
| Parties | N. C. CHAPMAN, et al., Defendants in Error, v. MIJAMIN TEMPLETON, et al., Plaintiffs in Error. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Error to Louisiana Court of Common Pleas.
Minor & Foster, for Plaintiffs in Error.
Fagg & Dyer, for Defendants in Error.
I. The only purpose for which the tax-deed could have been used at all was to show color of title in the defendants, and inasmuch as they had failed to show possession for ten years, or evidence tending to show that fact, the deed was not competent for any purpose.
II. A donation of the block could not be shown by oral testimony.
This was an action of ejectment for a block of land in the city of Louisiana in Pike County.
The plaintiffs produced a clear paper title. The defendants relied on the statute of limitations, and for this purpose claimed under a tax sale as color of title, and introduced evidence tending to show, that they had in the year 1858 permitted the City of Louisiana to put a hog-pen on the block, about the center of it, which was used by the city for about two years, and then abandoned and went to decay, and was never used or occupied by the defendants.
The evidence tended to show, that the defendants had paid the taxes since they purchased at the tax sale.
The defendants then, merely to show color of title in connection with their possession, offered the tax deed which had been made to them in 1868, reciting the tax certificate of purchase in 1858. This deed was excluded by the court, and the defendants excepted.
They also offered to prove by parol, that the former owner of the block had conveyed it to the Catholic church. This evidence was also rejected, and the defendants excepted.
A verdict and judgment were given for plaintiffs, and the defendants filed a motion for a new trial, which was overruled, and they saved their exceptions, and have brought the case here by writ of error.
The only points relied on for reversal are the rejection of the tax deed, and the exclusion of the parol evidence to prove a conveyance of the block in dispute to the Catholic church.
In regard to the first point it is sufficient to say, that there was no evidence at all offered of continuous, open and notorious adverse possession of any part of the block for ten consecutive years. The continuous payment of taxes of itself is not sufficient to show adverse possession. The title of the real owner of land cannot be transferred to a stranger...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Shaffer v. Detie
...title to the land in controversy. Tiedeman on Real Property, sec. 799; Robinson v. Claggett, supra; Turner v. Williams, supra; Chapman v. Templeton, supra; McKinney v. Settles, 31 Mo. 541. (c) Plaintiff no notice of the pretended unrecorded sale from Stephen W. to J. C. Morehead, and it was......
-
Himmelberger-Harrison Lumber Company v. McCabe
... ... v ... Hays, 105 Mo. 152; Benne v. Miller, 149 Mo ... 237; Ewing v. Burnet, 11 Pet. 52; Holtzman v ... Douglas, 168 U.S. 284; Chapman v. Templeton, 53 ... Mo. 463. Possession of part of a tract, under color of title, ... is possession of the whole. R. S. 1899, sec. 4226; Draper ... ...
-
Simmons v. Headlee
...policy of our courts is to keep the exceptions to the statute strictly confined within the barriers originally assigned to them. Chapman v. Templeton, 53 Mo. 463; Kennedy v. Kennedy, 57 Mo. 73; Charpiot Sigerson, 25 Mo. 63; Webster v. Gray, 37 Mich. 37. Norton, C. J. Ray, J., absent. OPINIO......
-
Burdette v. May
...Mo. 538; Sharp v. Berry, 60 Mo. 575. (6) The payment of taxes alone will not support a claim of title under adverse possession. Chapman v. Templeton, 53 Mo. 463. The statute of limitations does not begin to run, in favor of one holding land under a resulting trust, until the issue of a pate......