James v. Snelson

• Decision Date: 30 June 1834
• Parties: JAMES & MASSEY v. SNELSON.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

3 Mo. 393

JAMES & MASSEY

v.SNELSON.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

June Term, 1834.

ERROR FROM THE CRAWFORD CIRCUIT COURT.

WASH, J.

This was an action of trover brought in the Crawford Circuit Court by the plaintiffs in error, against the defendant in error, for a quantity of cord wood. The defendant pleaded not guilty and had a verdict and judgment, to reverse which the plaintiffs below now prosecute their writ of error in this court. At the trial two bills of exception were taken, from which it appears that the facts are, in substance, that Snelson, the defendant in error, lived on public land in the neighborhood of iron works belonging to the plaintiffs, who being desirous to cut down wood to be made into coal for the use of their furnace, sent an agent for that purpose to Snelson's house and informed him of the fact; Snelson said he wished to reserve three or four acres for a patch to his own use, and went with the plaintiffs' agent and marked out the ground he wished reserved: the plaintiffs then proceeded to cut the wood, and during the months of January and February, 1833, did cut and cord up five or six hundred cords, about 120 or 130 of which were cut on the three or four acres which Snelson had expressed a wish to reserve. The wood so cut and corded remained upon the land until some time in the spring of 1833, when the plaintiffs' agent went to the place where the wood was, to make preparation for converting it into coal; the defendant then informed him that he had entered the land and claimed the whole of the wood, and warned him not to meddle with it at his peril. It appeared that the defendant had used a portion of the wood and claimed all the balance because he had entered the land. That the defendant on the 16th of March, 1833, paid to the Receiver of the Land Office at Jackson, fifty dollars in full for the southeast quarter of the southwest quarter of section No. five, township No. thirty-seven, north, of range No. five west, containing forty acres, and took his receipt for the money so paid, which receipt was read in evidence upon the proof of the signature of the receiver by the deposition of a witness. A witness also swore that the wood in dispute was cut upon the identical forty acres entered by Snelson, but could not state in what township or range the forty acres entered by Snelson were situate. Upon this state of facts the counsel for the defendant moved the court to instruct the jury to find a verdict for the defendant, which instruction was given by the court to the giving of which the plaintiffs objected and excepted. The counsel for the plaintiffs then moved the court to instruct the jury that although they might believe from the evidence that the wood was cut and corded upon the land which was afterwards entered by the defendant, such entry did not give the defendant any right to the wood which was so cut and corded up and then in possession of the plaintiffs, which last instruction was also given. The deposition of the witness, proving the signature of the receiver to the receipt given in evidence, as also the receipt itself, was objected to by the counsel for the plaintiffs on the trial in the Circuit Court; and several questions have been raised in this court, growing out of their admission, which need not be noticed, since the question arising out of the instruction given for the defendant, dispose of the matter.

First. Was the possession of the plaintiffs of the wood cut and corded up, such possession as will maintain trover, for property, the title to which arises from the bare possession?

Second. Did the proof of title in the...