Hamilton v. Badgett
| Decision Date | 07 April 1922 |
| Parties | C. M. HAMILTON v. LOUISA BADGETT et al., Appellants |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Butler Circuit Court. -- Hon. Almon Ing, Judge.
Affirmed.
Henson & Woody for appellants.
(1) The Act of Congress of February 9, 1853 (10 Stat. 155), granting lands in aid to the Cairo & Fulton Railroad, operated as a grant in praesenti and the issuance of a patent was not necessary to pass the title of the lands to the railroad company. St. Louis, Iron Mt. & S. Ry. Co. v. McGee, 75 Mo. 522, 115 U.S. 469, 29 L.Ed. 446; 32 Cyc. 938; Wilson v. Beckwith, 140 Mo. 384; Desert Salt Co v. Tarpley, 142 U.S. 241, 33 L.Ed. 999; Grinnell v Railroad, 103 U.S. 736, 26 L.Ed. 456; Land Co. v Weise, 208 U.S. 233, 52 L.Ed. 466. (2) The Act of Congress of July 28, 1866, was for the purpose, and had the effect, to revive and extend the provisions of the Act of 1853 for a period of ten years after the date of the passage of the act. St. Louis, I. Mt. & S. Ry. v. McGee, 75 Mo. 522, 115 U.S. 469 29 L.Ed. 446. (3) The lands involved in this suit were "indemnity" lands, the title to which passed to the St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railroad Company upon the approval of the selection thereof by the Secretary of the Interior on July 12, 1894. 22 R. C. L. 293 (50); 32 Cyc. 960 (11); Barney v. Railroad, 117 U.S. 228, 29 L.Ed. 858; United States v. Railroad, 141 U.S. 384, 35 L.Ed. 766; Railroad v. Price County, 133 U.S. 614, 33 L.Ed. 687. (4) The title having passed to the St. Louis, Iron Mountain and Southern Railroad Company on July 12, 1894, defendants have acquired that title by limitation. R. S. 1909, sec. 1879.
J. C. Sheppard for respondent.
(1) The general rule is that the Statute of Limitations does not begin to run until after a patent has been issued. 2 C. J. 216, sec. 448, 450. (a) Whatever exceptions there may be to this rule in other jurisdictions, this court has strictly adhered to it. McIllinney v. Fricke, 61 Mo. 329; Smith v. McCorkle, 105 Mo. 135, 141; Miller v. Dunn, 62 Mo. 216; Widdicumb v. Childers, 84 Mo. 382, 124 U.S. 400; Hammond v. Johnson, 93 Mo. 198; Marshal v. Hill, 246 Mo. 1. (2) Answering appellants' Point I, respondent says that the cases therein cited all involve lands in place, and not indemnity or "lieu" lands. For that reason such cases are not in point in the case at bar. (3) Appellants' Point 2 has reference to the act extending the time for completion of the railroad, and such cases as are there cited are immaterial to a decision of this case. (4) Appellants state in their Point 3 that In this appellants are correct as to the lands in this suit being "indemnity" lands, but are in error as to the remainder of the statement. The cases therein cited by appellants are all where the grant by Congress was to the railroad company direct. In the case at bar, the grant was to the State of Missouri for the use and benefit of the Cairo & Fulton Railroad Company, and the title thereto did not pass even to the State until the selections were made, approved by the Secretary of the Interior, and the approval certified to the State of Missouri. 32 Cyc. 960 (11); Young v. Charnquist, 114 Iowa 116; Sioux City, St. Paul Railroad Co. v. United States, 159 U.S. 349. Since 1865 the Statute of Limitations has not run against the State. Abernathy v. Dennis, 49 Mo. 469; School Dist. v. Georges, 50 Mo. 195; McCartney v. Alderson, 54 Mo. 320; Wickersham v. Woodback, 59 Mo. 59.
This is an appeal from a judgment in an action of ejectment, brought by the plaintiff in the Circuit Court of Butler County, to recover possession of eighty acres of land therein described. The answer was a general denial, a claim of title in fee to the land, an allegation that the plaintiff claims some interest therein adverse to the defendants and that the same be determined in this proceeding. There was a judgment for plaintiff, from which defendants appeal.
This case was tried upon an agreed statement of facts, the pertinent portions of which are as follows:
By an act of Congress approved February 9, 1853 (10 U.S. Stat. at Large, p. 155), certain even-numbered sections of land were granted to the State of Missouri for the purpose, as stated in the act, "of aiding in the making of the Cairo and Fulton Railroad Company and its branches." The lands thus granted to the State were declared by the act to be subject to disposal by the Legislature for the purpose of the grant and none other.
When a number of miles stated in the act had been built a specified quantity of the land was authorized to be sold upon the Governor certifying that fact to the Secretary of the Interior, and upon the sale the proceeds were applied to the purpose of the grant.
Under an act of Congress approved July 28, 1866 (14 U.S. Stat. at Large, p. 338) reviving and extending the grant to the State of February 9, 1853, it was provided in case any of the even-numbered sections included in that grant had been sold, patented, preempted, or otherwise disposed of or reserved, certain odd-numbered sections lying along the other line of those theretofore granted were included in the renewal of said grant under like custody, control and conditions. The land involved in this controversy is a part of these odd-numbered sections included by the last act in lieu of the even-numbered sections, and is described as the east half of the northeast quarter of section thirty-three, township twenty-six, north, range seven, east, in Butler County.
For the purpose of making the selection of these odd-numbered sections the Governor of the State was authorized to appoint an agent, and the selections made by such agent were sent to the General Land Office in Washington to be approved by the Secretary of the Interior, who, before approving same was required to ascertain whether or not any of the lands selected had previously been disposed of by the United States. If, upon examination, it was found that the selected lands were subject to the grant, the Secretary of the Interior certified the list of those selected, with his approval, and returned the list to the local land office in the jurisdiction where the lands were situated.
The list of selections containing the land in controversy was filed in the General Land Office June 25, 1894, and was approved by the proper authority July 12, 1894. There is no showing that the designated official ever certified his approval to the local land office in the jurisdiction where the land was located.
June 10, 1916, the United States issued a patent covering the land involved to the State of Missouri; and the State in turn issued a patent to same to the St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Company, July 15, 1916. By mesne conveyances the title became vested in the plaintiff unless prevented by the facts set forth in defendant's defense herein.
Defendants went into possession of the land in 1904, and have since had continuous adverse possession of same.
It is conceded that the sole question for determination is, did the title to the land in controversy vest in the St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Company as the successor of the Cairo & Fulton Railroad Company at the date when the selection of such land was approved by the Secretary of the Interior or when said company received the patent therefor?
I. Whether these lands were "grant" or "indemnity" lands within the meaning of these terms as technically applied to grants of public lands, or whether the grant was in praesenti, are not questions, under our view of the facts as interpreted in the light of the Federal statute, necessary to the determination of the matter at issue.
That statute is unequivocal in its terms. It provides (Sec. 3, p. 339, 14 U.S. Stat. at Large) "that all lands heretofore given to the State of Missouri for the construction of the Cairo and Fulton Railroad, or for the use of said road lying in the State of Missouri, and all lands proposed to be granted by this act for the use or in aid of the road herein named, and lying in said State of Missouri, shall be granted and patented to the said State whenever the road shall be completed through said State, which lands may be held by said State and used toward paying the State the amount of bonds heretofore used by it to aid said company, and all interest accrued or to accrue thereon."
We need not consider in this connection the act of the Missouri Legislature (Laws Mo., 1st Ex. Sess., 1855, p. 314) confirming the incorporation of the Cairo & Fulton Railroad Company and providing (Sec. 3) that the lands granted to the State under the Congressional act of 1853 (supra) might be designated by said railroad company and selected or located in conformity with the provisions of said act and vesting title in said railroad company in said lands for the use and purposes and subject to the condition reversion and provisions set forth in said act of Congress; and providing further that said railroad company shall locate the lands granted by the act of Congress by such agents as may be appointed by the Governor of this State for that purpose, subject to the approval in said act specified, and requiring a copy of the location of the land aforesaid, if not already made, to be made by the president or chief engineer of said railroad and forwarded to the local land office and the General Land Office as in said act of Congress spe...
To continue reading
Request your trial