Jamison v. Fopiano
| Decision Date | 31 March 1871 |
| Citation | 48 Mo. 194 |
| Parties | WILLIAM C. JAMISON, TRUSTEE OF LANE, ETC., Respondent, v. GITANO FOPIANO, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court.
S. Reber, for appellant.
Cline, Jamison & Day, for respondent.
This was an action of ejectment brought for the recovery of a small tract of land lying in the western end of the Lami tract in the City Commons. Both parties claim title under the city of St. Louis, and the title was in the city at the time of the execution by the city of a deed to M. S. Cerre, under whom the plaintiff claims. The defendant's claim is based upon a subsequent or junior deed.
The deed from the city, by virtue of which the plaintiff claims, conveys “that certain farm or piece of land situate and being in the Commons of the city of St. Louis and State of Missouri, bounded and described and laid down in the survey and plat of the Commons aforesaid, made by Charles DeWard, filed the third day of April, 1839, and on file in the recorder's office of the county and State aforesaid, as follows: bounded on the south by Petit, on the north by Durand, on the east by Carondelet avenue, and on the west by block No. 42 of the Commons of St. Louis, and laid down on the map aforesaid as the claim of Michael Lami; being two arpens in breadth and forty arpens in depth, containing eighty arpens,” etc. The strip of land in controversy is admitted to be a part of the Lami tract, and it is also included in block 42; and the only question is whether the deed defining the limit to be the western boundary of block 42 is to be taken and held as decisive and controlling of the true boundary. The court below decided that it was not, and gave judgment for the plaintiff. The recital in the deed designates the land as the claim of Michael Lami, being two arpens in breadth and forty arpens in depth, containing eighty arpens.
These Common Fields are well known in the history of St. Louis, and parties, when they contract in reference to them, are not liable to be mistaken as to the subject about which they contract, or as to its general locality, though they may be deceived as to the particular boundaries. The reference to block 42 was not made for the purpose of fixing the eastern boundary of the tract, as the thing granted was sufficiently ascertained by a full and correct description of the Lami tract of two by forty arpens, a well-known designation in the common-field lots. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
W.M. Ritter Lumber Co. v. Montvale Lumber Co.
...intention is clearly manifested that they should not govern or control in ascertaining the location of the land. It was held in Jamison v. Fopiano, 48 Mo. 194: monuments will generally prevail over other calls in a deed, yet if, taking the whole deed together, they are apparently erroneous,......
-
Ford v. Unity Church Society
...2 Wait's Actions and Defenses, 503; Tubbs v. Gatewood, 26 Ark. 128; Anderson v. Baughman, 7 Mich. 69; Gibson v. Bogy, 28 Mo. 478; Jamison v. Fopiano, 48 Mo. 194. (2) description in the deed then reads, "One-fourth part of," etc., and this means one undivided fourth part. If this be correct ......
-
Huffman v. Benitez
...when it is clear that it was inadvertently inserted and that a tract with different boundaries was intended to be conveyed. Jamison v. Fapiano, 48 Mo. 194. (5) A description land by governmental subdivisions, prevails over inconsistent erroneous description of quantity in the deed. Pruitt v......
-
Wilson v. Frost
... ... of it and to the general intention of the parties, they will ... be rejected. Gibson v. Bogy, 28 Mo. 478; Jamison ... v. Fopina, 48 Mo. 194. "The intent of a deed, ... however manifest, can not prevail against a fixed rule of ... law." Hogan v. Melker, 14 Mo ... ...