Gitt v. Watson

• Decision Date: 31 March 1853
• Parties: GITT, Plaintiff in Error, v. WATSON, Defendant in Error.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

18 Mo. 274

GITT, Plaintiff in Error,

v.WATSON, Defendant in Error.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

March Term, 1853.

1. A decree in conformity to the act regulating chancery practice, in a proceeding against unknown heirs, is effectual to pass the title of the heirs.

2. Under the new practice, a party is not required to file with his pleading all his documentary evidence, nor to set forth every link in his chain of title.

3. Identity of name is prima facie evidence of identity of person.

Error to St. Louis Circuit Court.

Todd & Krum and Delafield, for plaintiff in error.

E. & B. Bates, for defendant in error.

SCOTT, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

This was an action in the nature of ejectment, brought by the plaintiff in error against the defendant, for a tract of land situated in St. Louis county. The tract in dispute was a New Madrid location, in the name of Nathaniel Shaver or his legal representatives. The plaintiff claimed under conveyances from the heirs of Shaver. The defendant's title was a decree in chancery instituted against the unknown heirs of Nathaniel Shaver; Shaver transferred the certificate in his lifetime to George Bollinger, from whom Beverly Allen derived title. Allen instituted the suit in which the decree was obtained.

1. There was no exception taken to the regularity of the decree by which the legal title of the heirs of Shaver passed to Allen. The decree was rendered in 1835, prior to the conveyances by the heirs of Shaver to the plaintiff. The decree, being in conformity to the provisions of the statute regulating the practice in chancery in proceedings against unknown heirs, passed the title of the heirs of Shaver to Allen. There was no interest, then, in them which they could convey to the plaintiff.

2. There is nothing in the objection, that the decree was not filed with the answer of the defendant. The thirteenth section of the code referred to, is found in article seven, which relates to the general rules of pleading. There is no rule of pleading which requires that all the documentary evidence on which a party relies to support the truth of his pleading, should be filed along with it. Is a plaintiff to file with his petition all the written evidence on which he relies, when he does not know that any or what facts may be controverted by his adversary? Such a practice would be burdensome, and extremely inconvenient. Occasions may arise during the progress of a trial for the use of such documents, which it is impossible to foresee. Shall they, then, be rejected as evidence, because they were not filed with the pleadings? Such a practice uselessly encumbers a record and greatly increases the expense of suitors. There can no evil grow out of a failure to file documentary evidence. With the enlarged discretion confided to the courts in...