Hannibal & St. Joseph R.R. Co. v. Moore

• Decision Date: 28 February 1866
• Citation: 37 Mo. 338
• Parties: HANNIBAL AND ST. JOSEPH RAILROAD COMPANY, Appellant, v. JEREMIAH P. MOORE, Respondent.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

37 Mo. 338

HANNIBAL AND ST. JOSEPH RAILROAD COMPANY, Appellant,

v.JEREMIAH P. MOORE, Respondent.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

Febuary Term, 1866.

Appeal from Linn Circuit Court.

Hall & Oliver, for appellant.

1. The court improperly excluded the proofs offered by plaintiff. (10 U. S. Statutes at Large, 8; Greenl. Ev. §§ 484-5.)

II. It made at least a prima facie case of title in fee to the land in suit. (Acts of 1857, Adj. Sess. 54.)

III. The statute of limitations did not commence running against plaintiff until the selection of land was affirmed by the Secretary of the Interior. (Lindsey et als. v. Lessee of Miller, 6 Pet. 666.)

Lander, for respondent.

I. The company by the record have shown no title to the land in question, excepting that furnished by the record of the descriptive list, under the act of the Legislature Nov. 23, 1857.

The grants of land to the company attached to no particular part until the land was selected. (32 Mo. 21.) No evidence in the record shows that that land was ever selected.

II. There was no power in the Legislature to pass such a law, until it was first shown that the land in question passed out of the United States. (13 Pet. 517.)

HOLMES, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

This was an action in ejectment, commenced on the 30th day of July, 1863, in the Linn county Circuit Court, for the recovery of the possession of a tract of land, described as the south-east quarter of section 10, in township No. 58 north of the base line, and range No. 20 west of the fifth principal meridian, situated in the county of Linn, in the State of Missouri. The answer denied that the plaintiff was entitled to the possession of the premises. It admitted that the defendant had entered and taken possession of the premises, as alleged, but claimed that he had done so by virtue of a good and sufficient legal title in himself; and the statute of limitations was set up as a defence. The plaintiff claimed title under the act of Congress of June 10, 1852, entitled “An act granting the right of way to the State of Missouri, and a portion of the public lands to aid in the construction of certain railroads in said State” (10 U. S. Stat. at Large, p. 8); and an act of the General Assembly of the State of Missouri, entitled “an act to accept a grant of land,” &c., approved September 20, 1852 (R. R. Laws, 115); and offered in evidence, First--A certified copy of a resolution of the board of directors of the Hannibal and St. Joseph Railroad Company, adopted on the ninth day of March, 1853, accepting the grant of lands mentioned in said act, from the office of the Secretary of State, where it had been filed on the 17th day of March, 1853; to the admission of which no objection was made.

Second--A certified copy of the map of the definite location and route of the Hannibal and St. Joseph Railroad, with lines and figures on the same denoting the sections, townships and ranges within six miles of the railroad, from the office of the Commissioner of the General Land Office, by which it appeared that the location of the route was made and adopted by the company on the 8th day of March, 1853; but it did not show the date when the same was filed in the Office of the Commissioner of the General Land Office at Washington; and it was admitted by the defendant that the land sued for was situated within six miles of the railroad, as located on the map, but there was nothing on the face of the map to indicate that this particular quarter section had been granted, nor were the sections numbered on the map. This document was excluded as “improper evidence.”

Third--A certified copy of a similar map, from the office of the Recorder of Linn county, which appeared to have been filed for record on the 16th day of March, 1854; but the copy was not certified by the Recorder to be a copy of the record in his office; and it was excluded on the ground that it was not recorded, no objection being specifically taken to the want of a certificate of the Recorder. It was admitted that the land sued for lies within six miles of the railroad as indicated on the map; but there was nothing on the face of the map to indicate that the land...