Hunter v. Pemiscot Land & Cooperage Co.

• Decision Date: 30 November 1912
• Citation: 151 S.W. 714,246 Mo. 135
• Parties: HUNTER et al. v. PEMISCOT LAND & COOPERAGE CO.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

151 S.W. 714

246 Mo. 135

HUNTER et al. v. PEMISCOT LAND & COOPERAGE CO.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.

November 30, 1912.

1. QUIETING TITLE (§ 22) — TITLE OF PLAINTIFF — SUFFICIENCY — COMMON SOURCE.

In an action under Rev. St. 1899, § 650, to quiet title, where there was no assumed or agreed common source of title in the pleadings, but plaintiff undertook to deraign a record title from one P., and defendant relied upon a deed from P. and another, a common source of title in P. was not shown, and plaintiff, claiming only a paper title, was thereby forced to show a good paper title.

2. PUBLIC LANDS (§ 61) — SWAMP LANDS — CERTIFICATE OF ENTRY — OPERATION.

A mere certificate of entry on swamp lands is insufficient to pass title, although a receiver's receipt, showing that the purchase price has been paid, gives the person making the payment an equitable interest in the land described in the receipt.

3. RECORDS (§ 17) — SUPPLYING LOST RECORD — ABSTRACTS — EFFECT.

Act March 28, 1901 (Laws 1901, p. 251), making Carleton's Abstract Books, or certified copies of the entries therein, prima facie evidence of the matter and entries therein contained as taken from the records of Pemiscot county prior to their destruction, has no reference to entries in a register's book of locations on public swamp lands, as such register is not a public record required by law to be kept, and hence the entries from such abstract book are not admissible as prima facie evidence of entries in such register.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Pemiscot County; Henry C. Riley, Judge.

Action by Sterling P. Hunter and others against the Pemiscot Land & Cooperage Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.

Action under old section 650 to quiet title. Petition is short, but in the usual form. By a supplemental abstract, filed by respondent, appears a lengthy answer. This additional and supplemental abstract is not attacked by the appellants, and hence the answer therein set out must be taken as the proper pleading in the case, although it differs from the answer set out in appellants' abstract. By the supplemental abstract, respondent challenged the correctness of appellants' abstract. By this answer, the defendant, now respondent, says: (1) That it is the owner of the lands in dispute and denies that plaintiffs have any title or interest therein; (2) it pleads the 10-year statute of limitations, averring that it and its grantors have been in the open, notorious, and peaceable possession of said lands for more than 10 years; (3) it invokes the 30-year statute of limitations; and (4) the answer then concludes with the invocation of the 10-year statute of limitations from another angle in this language: "And defendant, for its other and further answer and defense herein, avers that under the provisions of section 1 of an act entitled `An act to enlarge the jurisdiction of courts of record in suits to determine and quiet the title to real estate,' approved March 15, 1897 (Laws 1897, p. 74), plaintiffs were at said last-mentioned date empowered to institute this action; that the time in said act and in section 650 of the Revised Statutes of 1899, under and by virtue of which plaintiffs were empowered to sue, expired on March 15, 1907, and that plaintiff did not commence this action until June 14, 1907, more than 10 years after he was by said statute empowered to do so, and that by reason of said facts and of said statute plaintiff is now barred from prosecuting or maintaining this action; and defendant pleads these facts and the above statute of limitations, and all of them, in bar of this suit. And defendant again prays judgment, and for his costs in this behalf sustained. And defendant, having fully answered, now again prays judgment, and let it go hence with its costs."

After a finding of facts, the judgment entered is in this language: "It is therefore...