City of St. Louis v. St. Louis Blast Furnace Co.

• Decision Date: 01 June 1911
• Citation: 138 S.W. 641,235 Mo. 1
• Parties: CITY OF ST. LOUIS, Appellant, v. ST. LOUIS BLAST FURNACE COMPANY
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

138 S.W. 641

235 Mo. 1

CITY OF ST. LOUIS, Appellant, v. ST. LOUIS BLAST FURNACE COMPANY

Supreme Court of Missouri, First Division

June 1, 1911

Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. -- Hon. Daniel G. Taylor Judge.

Affirmed.

Lambert E. Walther and Henry W. Allen for appellant.

(1) An action for the recovery of possession of land may be maintained against any person not having a better title thereto, in all cases where the plaintiff claims possession thereof under or by virtue of a confirmation made under the laws of the United States. R. S. 1909, sec. 2383; Janis v. Gurno, 4 Mo. 458. (2) The Act of June 13, 1812 (2 U S. Stat. at L. 748), and the supplementary acts of May 26 1824 (4 U. S. Stat. at L. 65), and of January 27, 1831 (U. S. Stat. at L. 435), operated ex proprio vigore to divest the title of the land designated therein out of the United States and to vest it in the inhabitants of the village. See Carondelet v. St. Louis, 25 Mo. 459; also Vasseur v. Benton, 1 Mo. 296; Janis v. Gurno, 4 Mo. 458; Lawless v. Newman, 5 Mo. 236; Gurno v. Janis, 6 Mo. 330; Ashby v. Cramer, 7 Mo. 98; Hammond v. Schools, 8 Mo. 65; Dent v. Bingham, 8 Mo. 579; Trotter v. Schools, 9 Mo. 69; Montgomery v. Landusky, 9 Mo. 714; Page v. Scheibel, 11 Mo. 167; Harrison v. Page, 16 Mo. 182; Gamache v. Piquignot, 17 Mo. 310; Soulard v. Clark, 19 Mo. 582; Carondelet v. McPherson, 20 Mo. 201; Milburn v. Hortiz, 23 Mo. 532; Vasquez v. Ewing, 24 Mo. 31; Funkhouser v. Langkoff, 26 Mo. 453; Primm v. Haren, 27 Mo. 205; Milburn v. Hardy, 28 Mo. 514; Dent v. Sigerson, 29 Mo. 489; Carondelet v. St. Louis, 29 Mo. 527; Fine v. St. Louis Public Schools, 30 Mo. 166; Barry v. Blumenthal, 32 Mo. 29; Langlois v. Crawford, 59 Mo. 456; Glasgow v. Baker, 85 Mo. 559, and 128 U.S. 560; St. Louis v. Railway, 114 Mo. 13; Strother v. Lucas, 12 Peters, 412; LeBois v. Brammell, 4 How. 457; Guitard v. Stoddard, 16 How. 494; Savignac v. Garrison, 59 U.S. 136; Glasgow v. Hortiz, 66 U.S. 595; Carondelet v. St. Louis, 66 U.S. 179; Dent v. Emmeger, 81 U.S. 308; Ryan v. Carter, 93 U.S. 78. (3) Brown's Survey of the Commons of Carondelet was authorized and approved. Dent v. Sigerson, 29 Mo. 489. (4) The approved survey of the boundaries of a village, confirmed by the Act of June 13, 1812, is equivalent to a patent. Vasquez v. Ewing, 24 Mo. 31; Le Bois v. Brammell, 4 How. 449; Robbins v. Eckler, 36 Mo. 494; Kissell v. Schools, 16 Mo. 553. (5) The city of St. Louis has succeeded to Carondelet's title. Laws 1870, p. 458; Scheme and Charter of St. Louis. (6) The affidavits and evidence submitted before the land commissioners and the recorder and preserved in their minutes are not competent evidence to show possession prior to December 20, 1803. Janis v. Gurno, 4 Mo. 458; Ashley v. Cramer, 7 Mo. 98; Soulard v. Clark, 19 Mo. 570; Carondelet v. McPherson, 20 Mo. 192; St. Louis v. Toney, 21 Mo. 243; Vasquez v. Ewing, 24 Mo. 31. (7) The Act of March 3, 1807, did not proprio vigore vest the title in the claimants; the favorable action of the commissioners, followed by the execution of a patent, was necessary to complete the title. Burgess v. Gray, 16 How. 48. (8) The confirmation by the "Old Board" does not describe any land with sufficient definiteness to locate it. It also calls for a survey to be made in accordance with the actual possession. No such survey was ever made. (9) The confirmation of a Spanish grant without showing location is not sufficient. Waddingham v. Gamble, 4 Mo. 465; Vasquez v. Ewing, 42 Mo. 247; Baird v. St. Louis Hospital Assn., 116 Mo. 419; Snyder v. Sickles, 98 U.S. 203; Landes v. Brant, 10 How. 348; West v. Cochran, 17 How. 403; Ledone v. Black, 18 How. 473. (10) Where the documentary evidences of title produced by the claimant contains no sufficient lines or boundaries to show that any definite and distinct parcel of land was severed from the public domain, the universal rule is that the concession in such case creates no right of private property in any particular tract of land which can be maintained in a court of justice without an antecedent survey and location. U. S. v. King, 3 How. 786; U. S. v. Forbes, 15 Pet. 173; The Houmas Claim, 4 Op. Atty. Gen. 693; Magwire v. Tyler, 75 U.S. 650. (11) Where the claim has no certain limits and the degree of confirmation carries with it the condition that the land must be surveyed, then it is beyond controversy that the title of the claimant, although confirmed, attaches to no land, nor has a court of justice any authority in law to ascertain and establish the boundaries, as that power is reserved either to the Executive Department or to Congress. Stanford v. Taylor, 18 How. 412; Bissell v. Penrose, 8 How. 334; Magwire v. Tyler, 8 Wall 650; Carondelet v. St. Louis, 1 Black 179; D'Auterieve v. U.S. 101 U.S. 700.

Edward C. Kehr for respondent.

(1) Acts of Congress for ascertaining and adjusting titles to land in the District of Louisiana. Mar. 2, 1805, 2 U. S Stat. at L. 324; Apr. 21, 1806, 2 U. S. Stat. at L. 391; Mar. 3, 1807, 2 U. S. Stat. at L. 440; Apr. 29, 1816, 3 U. S. Stat. at L. 328. (2) An act making further provision for settling the claims to land in the territory of Missouri, approved June 13, 1812, 2 U. S. Stat. at L. 748. The first section of the act was a present operative grant, vesting in the individual, from the date of its passage, the complete legal title to the land he or those under whom he claimed had inhabited, cultivated or possessed prior to Dec. 20, 1803. Vasseur v. Benton, 1 Mo. 216; Gurno v. Janis, 6 Mo. 330; Janis v. Gurno, 4 Mo. 458; Biehler v. Coonce, 9 Mo. 343; Montgomery v. Landusky, 9 Mo. 705; Page v. Scheibel, 11 Mo. 167; Harrison v. Page, 16 Mo. 182; Soulard v. Clark, 19 Mo. 570; City of St. Louis v. Toney, 21 Mo. 243; Milburn v. Hortiz, 23 Mo. 532; Carondelet v. St. Louis, 25 Mo. 448; Funkhouser v. Langkopf, 26 Mo. 458; Milburn v. Hardy, 28 Mo. 514; Fine v. Schools, 30 Mo. 166; Williams v. Carpenter, 42 Mo. 327; Glasgow v. Lindell's Heirs, 50 Mo. 60; Glasgow v. Baker, 85 Mo. 559; Glasgow v. Baker, 128 U.S. 560; Langlois v. Crawford, 59 Mo. 456; Peting v. DeLore, 71 Mo. 13; Guitard v. Stoddard, 57 U.S. 494; Savignac v. Garrison, 59 U.S. 136; Glasgow v. Hortiz, 66 U.S. 595; Ryan v. Carter, 93 U.S. 78. By the second section of the act all lots not rightfully owned or claimed by private individuals or held as common or reserved for military purposes, are reserved for the support of schools and were relinquished by the government to the schools by the act of January 27th, 1831. Trotter v. Schools, 9 Mo. 68; Kissell v. Schools, 16 Mo. 553; Kissell v. Schools, 59 U.S. 19; Strother v. Lucas, 37 U.S. 455. (3) Act of May 26, 1824, 4 U. S. Stat. at L. 65; act of Jan. 27, 1831, 4 U. S. Stat. at L. 435. (4) The defendant in ejectment is entitled to the possession against all the world but the right owner. The plaintiff in ejectment must recover, if at all, on the strength of his own title. Marvin v. Elliott, 99 Mo. 616; Mather v. Walsh, 107 Mo. 121; West v. Brettelle, 115 Mo. 653; Kingman v. Sievers, 143 Mo. 519. In ejectment, plaintiff must stand on his own title and if he has none he cannot recover against the party holding the possession. Large v. Fisher, 49 Mo. 307. (5) Conway's Certificate purports to confirm the commons only and has no reference to village lots. Moreover it was made without authority and is not evidence of title. Primm v. Haren, 27 Mo. 210; Gamache v. Piquignot, 17 Mo. 310, 57 U.S. 451. (6) Brown's Survey is not evidence of title. A survey determines the location and boundary of land, but never its title. The inhabitants of the village took title to their lots under the acts of Congress of March 3, 1807, and June 13, 1812, but Carondelet as a community had no title to the body of land claimed as their common, until its boundary and location was determined by Brown's Survey, and that survey was approved by the Government and accepted by Carondelet. When so approved and accepted, it determined, as between the Government and Carondelet, the body of land to which the latter took title as its common. Carondelet v. St. Louis, 66 U.S. 179; Milburn v. Hortiz, 23 Mo. 537; Eberle v. Schools, 11 Mo. 258; Barry v. Blumenthal, 32 Mo. 29; Glasgow v. Lindell, 50 Mo. 80; Glasgow v. Hortiz, 66 U.S. 595; Dent v. Bingham, 8 Mo. 579; Carondelet v. McPherson, 20 Mo. 192; Carondelet v. St. Louis, 25 Mo. 448; Carondelet v. St. Louis, 29 Mo. 527; St. Louis v. U.S. 9 Ct. Claims Rep. 455; St. Louis v. U.S. 92 U.S. 462. (7) The claim that Brown's Survey is prima facie evidence of title, must necessarily be limited to land within the commons. The lots in the village of Carondelet and the tract known as the commons are entirely separate and distinct bodies of land, held by different owners and by different titles. Brown's Survey, which fixed the location and boundaries of the commons, cannot be evidence of title in Carondelet to a village lot, and it has never heretofore been so claimed. An analysis of the cases relied on by appellant shows that the doctrine was never invoked, except as to land within the boundaries of the commons. Vasquez v. Ewing, 24 Mo. 31; Les Bois v. Bramell, 45 U.S. 449. (8) Respondent claims title, not under Carondelet, but under the original lot owners in the village. The quitclaim deeds of Carondelet are not links in respondent's chain of title, and the latter is not bound by them; they neither convey title nor do they show a compromise; yet the proposition is well settled that a vendee is not estopped to dispute his vendor's title, and may claim under as many titles as he has. Macklot v. Du Breuil, 9 Mo. 477; Joeckel v. Easton, 11 Mo. 118; Blair v. Smith, 16 Mo. 273; Cutter v. Waddingham, 33 Mo. 269; Mattison v. Ousmuss, 50 Mo. 551; Cummings v. Powell, 97 Mo. 524. (9) Respond...