Dalton v. Bank of St. Louis

• Decision Date: 31 October 1873
• Citation: Dalton v. Bank of St. Louis, 54 Mo. 105 (Mo. 1873)
• Parties: PAULINE DALTON, et al., Respondents, v. BANK OF ST. LOUIS, et al., Appellants.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

54 Mo. 105

PAULINE DALTON, et al., Respondents,

v.BANK OF ST. LOUIS, et al., Appellants.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

October Term, 1873.

1. Ejectment--Possession--Limitation.

Open, notorious, peaceable, continuous and adverse possession of land for twenty years will give a title that will authorize a recovery in ejectment.

2.Acknowledgment--Deed with defective--Adverse possession.

A deed, notwithstanding a defective acknowledgment, is good between the parties.It would constitute color of title, and enable persons in possession of land to avail themselves of title by adverse holding.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court.

C. C. Whittelsey, for Appellants.

Cline, Jamison & Day and B. A. Hill, for Respondents.

WAGNER, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

A careful examination of the record has convinced us, that, the only question in this case is the statute of limitations.

The action was ejectment to recover a strip of land six feet in width off from a lot on Third street, in the city of St. Louis.

The plaintiffs' claim was finally based on prescription, and on this sole issue, the cause was submitted by them to the court.We will not discuss the evidence.The facts were for the triers, and the only thing with which we are concerned, is, did the court submit the cause under correct propositions of law?The trial was by the court without the intervention of a jury, and on behalf of the plaintiffs, the following declaration was given:

“If the court finds from the evidence in the case, that plaintiffs and those under whom they claim and derive title, have had and held open, notorious, peaceable, continuous, adverse and quiet possession of the premises sued for, twenty years immediately preceding 1856 or 1857; and that the defendants, and those under whom they claim title or possession, first entered upon and took possession of the premises sued for in 1856 or 1857, and have held possession ever since, then the plaintiffs are entitled to recover.”

For the defendantsthe court declared the law to be, “that if defendants, and those under whom they claim, have had adverse possession of so much of the premises described in the petition as is covered by the building of defendants, and said possession was open, notorious and hostile, under claim of title, and continuous for more than ten years prior to the institution of this suit, on February 27th, 1864, then the plaintiffs cannot recover the portion of said premises so covered by said building.”

The court found for the plaintiffs.

The instructions on the question of possession for the statutory period of limitation given for both parties, are entirely unexceptionable.

The declaration given for the plaintiffs...