Griffith & Griffith v. Deerfelt
| Decision Date | 31 October 1852 |
| Citation | 17 Mo. 31 |
| Parties | GRIFFITH AND GRIFFITH, Respondents, v. DEERFELT AND POWELL, Appellants. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
1. Although our statute allows an action of ejectment to be maintained or defended upon an entry with the register and receiver, yet it is only where the adverse party has not a better title. A patent is a better legal title than such an entry.
Appeal from St. Charles Circuit Court.
Hunt and Krekel, for appellants. The rejection of the claim of Griffith by the register was conclusive against his rights. The further proceedings, after this rejection, and after the expiration of the preëmption laws, were without authority, and the patent issued thereon is void. Morton v. Blankenship, 5 Mo. Rep. 356. Groom v. Hill, 9 ib. 323. O'Hanlon v. Perry, ib. 809. Perry v. O'Hanlon, 11 ib. 589. Pettigrew v. Shirley, 9 ib. 687. McDaniel v. Orton, 12 ib. 12. Patterson v. Winn, 11 Wheat. 380. Stoddard v. Chambers, 2 How. 318. Ib. 344.
J. D. Coalter, for respondents. 1. A patent is a better title than an entry with the register and receiver. Bagnell v. Broderick, 13 Peters, 436. Wilcox v. Jackson, ib. 498. 2. Griffith's claim to a preëmption was good. The decision of the register and receiver, acting with the advice of the commissioner of the general office, is conclusive. Perry v. O'Hanlon, 11 Mo. Rep. 591.GAMBLE, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.
This was an action of ejectment to recover a tract of land in St. Charles county. The plaintiffs claimed under a patent from the United States, dated April 10, 1843, conveying the land to Daniel Griffith, the ancestor of the plaintiffs. The entry on which this patent issued was made January 23, 1839, under a claim to a preëmption; the claim having been exhibited to the register and receiver in June, 1836. The defendants claimed under an entry made on the 4th of March, 1836, and gave evidence to invalidate Griffith's claim to a preëmption. The Circuit Court instructed the jury that the patent to Griffith was a better title than the entry of the land made in March, 1836. Instructions were asked by the defendants relating to the preëmption claim of Griffith, which the court refused. Judgment was given for the plaintiffs.
1. Although our statute allows an action of ejectment to be maintained or defended upon an entry with the register and receiver, yet it is only where the adverse party has not a better title to the land. The Supreme Court of the United States, which possesses the ultimate...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brinkerhoff v. Juden
......Snow, 82 Mo. 591;. Stone v. Perkins, 217 Mo. 598; Allison v. Hunter, 9 Mo. 750; Griffith v. Deerfelt, 17 Mo. 31; Carman v. Johnson, 20 Mo. 110. The infirmity, if. infirmity it be (the ......
-
Hedrick v. Beeler
...U.S. 47. (5) The patent from the United States, dated July 12, 1886, vested in appellant the legal title to the land sued for. Griffith v. Deerfelt, 17 Mo. 31; Steel Smelting Co., 106 U.S. 447. The land in this case was vacant. There was no application to enter or locate it by Robert Mercer......
-
Gibson v. Chouteau
...under the Federal laws. It is the settled doctrine of this court that, in a contest between a patent and an entry, the patent will prevail--17 Mo. 31; 20 Mo. 108. Now, when this location became complete on the return of the transcript plat of the survey to the Recorder, the title of Mrs. Mc......
-
Prior v. Scott
...v. Jones, 63 Mo. 195. Certainly not as against the defendant, who is the holder of a patent from the county for the same land. Griffith v. Deerfelt, 17 Mo. 31; Bagnell v. Broderick, 13 Pet. 436; Wilcox v. Jackson, 13 Pet. 498. (4) There is neither claim nor proof of title in plaintiff by ad......