Draper v. Shoot
Citation | 25 Mo. 197 |
Parties | DRAPER, Appellant, v. SHOOT et al., Respondents. |
Decision Date | 31 March 1857 |
Court | United States State Supreme Court of Missouri |
1. A failure to pay a nominal consideration cannot be shown to defeat a deed.
2. What will constitute an adverse possession of land under the statute of limitations must be determined by the circumstances of each case.
3. To support and establish such an adverse possession, a less weight of evidence is required where the entry is with, than where it is without, color of title.
4. The acts of ownership exercised must be visible and notorious, and of such a nature as indicate a notorious claim of property in the land.
5. In determining the question of adverse possession, the payment of taxes by the person asserting title by adverse possession is a fact that may, with other circumstances, be considered by the jury.
Appeal from Marion Circuit Court.
This was an action in the nature of an action of ejectment to recover possession of lot No. 3, in block No. 11, in the city of Hannibal. It was commenced August 16th, 1851. Plaintiff claims title under one Abram Bird. The lot in controversy is embraced in a tract of 640 acres patented to the said Bird, or his legal representatives. The patent bears date December 1st, 1824. The city of Hannibal is located upon said tract of 640 acres. The defendants insist that a portion of the Bird title has enured to them. It is conceived unnecessary to set forth fully the facts upon which this enurement is claimed to rest. The defendants also rely upon the statute of limitations as a bar to the entire action. The facts, so far as they bear upon this defense, are as follows: In the years 1818 and 1819 there was a company known as the “Hannibal Company.” It was composed of Moses D. Bates, Stephen Rector, Thomas C. Rector, William V. Rector, Richard Gentry and Thompson Bird. The Hannibal Company laid out the town of Hannibal. In the year 1819 Moses D. Bates, acting for said company, made a public sale of lots in the town of Hannibal. The lot in controversy was sold by said Bates to one Robert Masterson. No deed was executed and delivered to said Masterson by Bates. The consideration of the sale to him was his building upon the lot. By a deed dated April 15th, 1819, four members of said company--Stephen Rector, William V. Rector, Richard Gentry and Thomas C. Rector--conveyed said lot to Masterson by the following deed of conveyance:
The title of the Hannibal Company to the site of the town of Hannibal proved defective. After the date of the purchase from said company by Masterson of the lot in controversy, an undivided interest of one-eighth vested in William V. Rector, one of the parties to the above deed, by virtue of mesne conveyances from the heirs of Abram Bird. It is claimed by defendants that the interest so acquired enured to the benefit of Masterson and those claiming under him.
Masterson built a house on the lot in the year 1819. He never occupied it himself. He sold and conveyed it in the year 1822 to Vanlandingham. The evidence tended to show that persons holding under Vanlandingham occupied said house from 1822 until about the year 1832 or 1833, when the house fell or was torn down. A portion of the materials seems to have remained on the premises until a new house was built upon the lot in the year 1839, by tenants of Vanlandingham. There was also evidence tending to show that, after the house was deserted, some of the logs were sold by Vanlandingham. It was admitted that defendants and Vanlandingham, under whom they claim, were in possession of said lot from 1839--time of building the new house--down to the time of the institution of this suit. The defendants also adduced in evidence the assessor's books and tax receipts, showing that Vanlandingham had assessed the lot in controversy as his, and had paid taxes thereon to the state and county from 1823 until this suit was brought. The court, on motion of plaintiff, excluded these tax receipts, etc., from the jury.
The court gave the following instruction asked by plaintiff: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Land Clearance for Redevelopment Authority of City of St. Louis v. Zitko, 49980
...under color of title may be established by a less weight of evidence than a bare entry by an intruder under no claim of right. Draper v. Shoot, 25 Mo. 197, 202. Respondents' exhibit C, the deed of May 27, 1950, recited that the instrument was signed and sealed by authority of its board of d......
-
National Cypress Pole & Piling Co. v. Hemphill Lumber Co.
...v. Miller, 149 Mo. 288; Golderman v. Schiermeyer, 125 Mo. 291; Golderman v. Schiermeyer, 111 Mo. 404; Lepper v. Baker, 68 Mo. 400; Draper v. Shoot, 25 Mo. 197. (b) timber, patrolling and keeping off trespassers and payment of taxes are acts of ownership which are evidences of possession. He......
-
Goltermann v. Schiermeyer
...16 S.W. 957. The question then is whether there is evidence here of actual possession of the eastern part of the land in suit. In Draper v. Shoot, 25 Mo. 197, it was said: is no easy matter to say what is an adverse possession. It is a question compounded of law and fact, and every case in ......
-
Price v. Springfield Real Estate Ass'n
...and cases there cited. (3) Upon the evidence in this case, the general statutes of limitations are a complete bar to this suit. Draper v. Shoot, 25 Mo. 197; Fugate Pierce, 49 Mo. 441; Musick v. Barney, 49 Mo. 558; Turner v. Hill, 60 Mo. 271; Key v. Jennings, 66 Mo. 356, 367; Leeper v. Baker......