Hammond v. Johnston
| Decision Date | 14 December 1891 |
| Parties | HAMMOND et al. v. JOHNSTON et al |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
George F. Edmunds, D. T. Jewett, and H. H. Denison, for plaintiffs in error.
This was an action of ejectment for a lot described, brought in the circuit court of St. Louis county, June 15, 1874. The facts necessary to be considered in the disposition of the case are as follows: Joseph Hunot claimed a head-right of 800 arpents of land, under the Spanish government, dated in 1802, and located in what is now New Madrid county, Mo. On May 12, 1810, he conveyed this land by warranty deed to Joseph Vandenbenden, and on November 4, 1815, Vandenbenden conveyed the same by a like deed to Rufus Easton. January 31, 1811, the claim was presented for confirmation to the old board of commissioners, and rejected; but on November 1, 1815, Recorder Bates recommended the claim for 640 acres for confirmation, and it was confirmed by act of congress of April 29, 1816, (3 St. 328.) August 12, 1816, Recorder Bates issued a certificate, No. 161, stating that the tract had been materially injured by earthquakes, and that under the act of congress of February 17, 1815, Joseph Hunot, or his legal representatives, (who had already received a certificate for 160 acres,) were entitled to locate 480 acres of land on any of the public lands of the territory of Missouri, the sale of which was authorized by law. On June 16, 1818, Rufus Easton made application to the surveyor general to locate the said certificate on certain lands in township 45, range 7 E., being the same on which it was subsequently located. June 23, 1819, Joseph C. Brown, United States deputy-surveyor, returned to the surveyor general's office a plat and description of the 480 acres surveyed for Joseph Hunot or his legal representatives. This survey, which was numbered 2,500, was returned to the recorder of land titles onJanuary 8, 1833, and on February 2, 1833, Frederick R. Conway, the recorder, issued and delivered to Peter Lindell patent certificate No. 404, for said survey, in favor of Joseph Junot or his legal representatives. July 10, 1819, Rufus Easton and wife, by deed of that date, conveyed to William Stokes 234 acres of this survey, described particularly by metes and bounds. September 29, 1823, Rufus Easton, by deed of that date, acknowledged October 9, 1823, and recorded February 9, 1824, in which he recited that he had previously, on September 3, 1818, executed his bond to Samuel Hammond and James J. Wilkinson for the same land, conveyed to Samuel Hammond 240 acres, being the whole of the Hunot survey, as located by Rufus Easton by virtue of certificate No. 161, except 234 acres of the tract, which he had conveyed to Stokes. The lot in question in this suit is part of the 240 acres. Samuel Hammond occupied, fenced, and cultivated this land between 1818 and 1823. In 1824 or 1825 he left St. Louis, and went to South Carolina, where he continued to reside until 1842, when he died leaving five children. On the 12th of March, 1819, Relfe, Chew, and Clark instituted suit against Samuel Hammond in the St. Louis circuit court, which resulted in a judgment against him for the sum of $6,841.80 1/2, which judgment was finally affirmed by the then supreme court at the May term, 1823. An execution was issued on this judgment, May 23, 1823, and delivered to the sheriff of St. Louis county, by virtue of which he levied upon the 240 acres, as the property of Samuel Hammond, and, after advertisement, the land was sold by him, October 8, 1823, to Relfe and Chew, who were the highest and best bidders for the same, whereupon the sheriff executed his deed to said purchasers in due form of law, dated November 4, 1823. This deed was duly acknowledged and recorded. The land was subsequently sold and conveyed by Relfe and Chew to Peter Lindell, to whom Joseph Hunot and wife had also conveyed. On August 30, 1859, on Lindell's application, a patent was issued by the United States and recorded in the general land-office, conveying the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carter Oil Co. v. Eli
...in that the decision of the state Supreme Court could be sustained, and was sustained on nonfederal grounds. Hammond v. Johnston, 142 U.S. 73, 78, 35 L. Ed. 941, 942, 12 S. Ct. 141; Eustis v. Bolles, 150 U.S. 361, 370, 37 L. Ed. 1111 at 1111-1113, 14 S. Ct. 131; Bilby v. Stewart, 246 U.S. 2......
-
Galveston H. & S. A. Ry. Co. v. Wells
...Enterprise Irrigation District v. Farmers' Mutual Canal Co., 243 U. S. 157, 37 S. Ct. 318, 61 L. Ed. 644; Hammond v. Johnston, 142 U. S. 73, 78, 12 S. Ct. 141, 35 L. Ed. 941, 942; Eustis v. Bolles, 150 U. S. 361, 14 S. Ct. 131, 37 L. Ed. 1111; Berea College v. Kentucky, 211 U. S. 45, 53, 29......
-
Estate of Ventling, Matter of
...the interest of the buyer to be treated as real estate for the purpose of the attachment of a judgment lien. Hammond v. Johnson, 142 U.S. 73, 12 S.Ct. 141, 35 L.Ed. 941 (1891); Cascade; Bank of Santa Fe; Collins, 516 P.2d 677. This approach assumes an appropriate statutory Confronted with w......
-
Neil v. State of Vermont
...139 U. S. 462, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 577; Henderson Bridge Co. v. Henderson City, 141 U. S. 679, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 114; Hammond v. Johnston, 142 U. S. 73, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 141; New Orleans v. New Orleans Water-Works Co., 142 U. S. 79, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. It was entirely immaterial how the liquor sol......