Connoyer v. Theodore Labeaume's Heirs

• Decision Date: 31 October 1869
• Citation: 45 Mo. 139
• Parties: CHAS. CONNOYER et al., Appellants, v. THEODORE LABEAUME'S HEIRS, Respondents.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

45 Mo. 139

CHAS. CONNOYER et al., Appellants,

v.THEODORE LABEAUME'S HEIRS, Respondents.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

October Term, 1869.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court.

For statement of the case, see Connoyer et al. v. Washington University, 36 Mo. 481.

Whittelsey and Cunningham, for appellants, cited Hogan . Page, 2 Wall., U. S., 605; Allen v. Moss, 27 Mo. 354; Allen v. King et al., 35 Mo. 216; Hogan v. Page, 22 Mo. 55; Mercier v. Letcher, 22 Mo. 66.

Glover & Shepley, and E. W. Pattison, for respondents, cited Bissell v. Penrose, 8 How. 317. Here Rudolph Tillier presented the claim before the first board, and exhibited before the board as evidence of his title an unacknowledged deed from Benito Vasquez to him. The court says that there was no claim on the part of Vasquez, but the claim was by Tillier, both by producing concession, and with it the written evidence of his claim, as required by the act, and decide that the title was confirmed to Tillier, the assignee, as claimant, under the act of 1836. (Boon v. Moore, 14 Mo. 120; Connoyer v. Washington University, 36 Mo. 481; Hogan v. Page, 2 Wall. 605; 22 Mo. 55; 32 Mo. 68.)

CURRIER, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an ejectment suit brought to recover possession of a portion of a common-field lot in the St. Louis prairie, confirmed to widow Dodier or her legal representatives, under the act of Congress of July 4, 1836. The main point in the case is the same as that presented in the suit in favor of the same plaintiffs against the Washington University, reported in 36 Mo. 481; that suit embracing another portion of the same common-field lot.

In Connoyer v. Washington University, the judge delivering the opinion of the court seems to recognize, without abatement, the principle announced in Bissell v. Penrose, 8 How. 317, as illustrated and applied in Boon v. Moore, 14 Mo. 420, but proceeds to say: “The cases of Bissell v. Penrose, and Boon v. Moore would require that they (the representatives of widow Dodier) should have made the claim for themselves, if not in their own names, at least in their own persons, and produced the evidence of their title as such legal representatives of the widow Dodier. This does not appear to have been done here.” Therefore, as it would seem for the reason that the things named did not appear by that record to have been done, the court reversed the judgment of the lower court.

The facts mentioned as not shown by the record in the University case, are supplied in the case at bar. It is not questioned that Louis LaBeaume, in 1811, as assignee of Margaret Bequette, widow of Dodier, and others, heirs of Francois M. Millet, upon legal notice, filed with the old board of commissioners the claim in question, together with the original concession to said Dodier, and a deed of transfer from the parties named as assignors to himself. It now further appears that he also at the same time filed with the board a deed from Joseph Hortiz, which assumes to convey to LaBeaume all the grantor's interest in the premises acquired by him at a public sale of the effects of Veuve Dodier. This deed is dated June 27, 1808. In the University case ...