Hedrick v. Beeler

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Missouri
Citation19 S.W. 492,110 Mo. 91
PartiesHEDRICK v. BEELER.
Decision Date23 May 1892

2. The plat book in the United States land office showed M.'s name written across a certain described 80-acre tract in range 16, and just over his name on the tract was a dim mark which it appeared might have been intended for the word "canceled." The tract book showed that the entry was made by M. in 1856, by land warrant No. 35, 772, and at an irregular place on the same page were the words, "Canceled May 4, 1861," and "Erroneously posted. See range 19." The tract book also showed that the same described 80 in range 19 was entered by M. at the same time in 1856, and by the same land warrant. This last entry is also marked as canceled; "warrant returned to general land office July 8, 1885." The tract book also showed that the N. ½ of the same 80, in range 19, was entered by H. prior to 1856, while the corresponding 80 in range 16 was vacant at that time. The custom of the office was, in case of warrant entries, to write the name of the purchaser across the plat entered on the plat book, and put on the land book from this memorandum. In applications for vacant land the register was guided by the entries in the plat book. Held, that the entries on the tract book were conclusive of M.'s intention to enter the 80 in range 16.

3. After M.'s grantees had gone into possession of the 80 in range 16, plaintiff entered the same tract, and received a patent therefor from the United States. Held, in ejectment, that the record entries were sufficient to put plaintiff on his inquiry when he made his entry, and were notice of M.'s pre-existing equities.

4. Notice to plaintiff's attorney, a land lawyer, of the pre-existing equities of defendant, constituted notice to plaintiff.

Appeal from circuit court, Schuyler county; ANDREW ELLISON, Judge.

Action by Robert G. Hedrick against Martin Beeler. Judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

The other facts fully appear in the following statement by SHERWOOD, C. J.:

Action of ejectment in usual form commenced April 13, 1887, to recover possession of N. E. ¼ S. W. ¼ section 36, township 66, range 16, in Schuyler county. The trial was upon an answer setting up an equitable defense and asking affirmative relief, alleging, in substance, that on July 30, 1856, one Robert Mercer "intended to enter, applied for, and in fact did enter," at the land office at Milan, Mo., the lands sued for, with land warrant No. 35,772, (act of March 3, 1855;) that, by mistake of the register of the land office at Milan, said entry was posted on the tract book of said register's office, erroneously describing the land as being in range 19 instead of range 16, as it was in fact, and should have been posted, and that plaintiff, with knowledge of these facts, entered said land, and obtained a patent therefor. Upon the trial, plaintiff introduced in evidence a patent from the United States, granting to himself the N. ½ S. W. ¼ of section 36, township 66, range 16, dated July 12, 1886, in Schuyler county. Upon the equitable defense, and in rebuttal thereof, the following facts were shown: Leland Wright, register of the land office at Boonville, testified in substance that he had in his custody the plat books and tract books of what was once the Milan district land office. The plat book shows the name "Mercer" written across the face of the N. ½ of the S. W. ¼ section 36, township 66, range 16, and just over the word "Mercer," on the same tract, there appears a dim mark which looks as though it might be intended for the word "canceled." The tract book shows the N. ½ S. W. ¼ 36-66-16, entered by Robert Mercer, assignee of Harriet Smith, July 30, 1856, by military land warrant No. 35,772. There are, at an irregular place, marked on the page of this entry, the words, "Canceled May 4th, 1861;" also, in red ink, the words, "Erroneously posted. See range 19." The tract book also shows that the N. ½ S. W. ¼ of section 36-66-19 was entered by Robert Mercer July 30, 1856, by same land warrant, No. 35,772. This entry is also marked as canceled May 4, 1861; "warrant returned to general land office July 8th, 1885." The tract book also shows that the N. W. ½ S. W. ¼ 36-66-19, was entered by Michael H. Herbert, by military land warrant, and the name "Herbert" is written across this tract on the plat book. The custom of the officers at the time these entries were made was, in case of warrant entries, to put the name of the purchaser across the tract entered on the plat book, and to post in the tract book from this memorandum. At that time, when applications were made for vacant land, the register would go to the plat book as his guide as to what lands were vacant, and was governed by the notations appearing in the same. Nine tenths of the applications were written by the register, and then signed by the applicant. The tract book also shows that N. ½ S. W. ¼ 36-66-16, was entered by Robert G. Hedrick August 11, 1886. Robert Mercer testified that he came from Indiana to Missouri in 1856, and entered at the land office at Milan the N. ½ S. W. ¼ section 36-66-16; entered the land in person with land warrant, and never had notice that the entry had been changed or canceled. The warrant had never been returned to him. Mercer sold and by deed of general warranty conveyed the land to George Foster, April 16, 1863, and under mesne conveyances from him defendant claims. Defendant had been in the actual possession of the land since 1879, and was never advised of an adverse claim until about the time this suit was commenced. Some official correspondence with the land department at Washington city was had in evidence. From this correspondence the following additional facts were developed: Mercer's land warrant, 35,772, was returned to the register and receiver at Boonville by letter of commissioner of general land office, dated May 4, 1861, with directions to notify Mercer that his...

To continue reading

Request your trial
23 cases
  • Varas v. Stewart and Company
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • June 4, 1929
    ......Hickman v. Green, 123 Mo. 165; Hedrich v. Beeler, 110 Mo. 91; Meier v. Blume, 80 Mo. 179; Babbitt v. Kelly, 96 Mo. App. 529; Jackson Co. v. Schmid, 141 Mo. App. 229; Johnson & Co. v. Ice & ......
  • Stonum v. Davis, 37233.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • April 3, 1941
    ......Johnson v. Fleutsch, 176 Mo. 470; McGuire v. Tyler, 40 Mo. 406; Hedrick v. Bealer, 110 Mo. 91; Carman v. Johnson, 20 Mo. 108. (10) A state has no power to declare any title less than one derived from a patent valid ......
  • Varas v. James Stewart & Co.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • June 4, 1929
    ...... of his authority, although the agent does not in fact inform. his principal thereof. Hickman v. Green, 123 Mo. 165; Hedrich v. Beeler, 110 Mo. 91; Meier v. Blume, 80 Mo. 179; Babbitt v. Kelly, 96 Mo.App. 529; Jackson Co. v. Schmid, 141 Mo.App. 229;. Johnson & Co. v. Ice & ......
  • Wilcox v. Phillips
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • November 21, 1906
    ...... 133 U.S. 692; Carroll v. Stafford, 44 U.S. 441;. Widdecombe v. Childers, 124 U.S. 404; Egbert v. Bond, 148 Mo. 23; Hadrick v. Beeler, 110 Mo. 91; Wilhite v. Barr, 67 Mo. 284; Callihan v. Davis, 90 Mo. 78; Johnson v. Fluetsch, 176 Mo. 470; Wirth v. Branson, 98 U.S. 118; ... State courts have jurisdiction to determine the controversy. between the adverse claimants thereto. [ Magwire v. Tyler, 40 Mo. 406; Hedrick v. Beeler, 110 Mo. 91, 19 S.W. 492; Carman v. Johnson, 20 Mo. 108.]". . .          In the. Wickersham case, above cited by Judge ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT