Lemmon v. Hartsook
Citation | 80 Mo. 13 |
Parties | LEMMON v. HARTSOOK, Appellant. |
Decision Date | 31 October 1883 |
Court | United States State Supreme Court of Missouri |
Appeal from Saline Circuit Court.--HON. WM. T. WOOD, Judge.
AFFIRMED.
Wallace & Chiles for appellant.
Davis & Willis for respondent.
This is a suit in ejectment to recover the south half of the south half of the southwest quarter of the northwest quarter of section 34, township 50, range 21. The petition is in the usual form. The answer is: 1st, A general denial; 2nd, That when the defendant bought and took possession of this land one Sarah Jeffries was the owner of the land now in controversy, and resided on the same; that she is plaintiff's grantor; that she and her agents pointed out to defendant a line between them as the true line; that defendant then built his fence thereon with her consent; that he has ever since owned and cultivated and claimed his said land to extend to said line; that said Sarah Jeffries agreed that said line should be the true line between them; and that, with her knowledge and without her objection, defendant made valuable improvements thereon; 3rd, That by acts and agreement of said Sarah Jeffries she and her grantees are now estopped from denying this line and claiming any land beyond it.
It was agreed on the trial that the parties claimed title from a common source, one Asa Finley. Plaintiff then introduced N. B. Ross, the county surveyor of Saline county, who testified that he surveyed the land for Albert Sims, and said:
Plaintiff then introduced Thomas Elliott, a former surveyor of Saline county, whose evidence tended to corroborate that of Ross, and other evidence tending to show that the corner fixed by Ross was the correct one.
Dennis H. Hartsook testified in his own behalf substantially that he bought his land in 1869; that Mrs. Jeffries then lived on the land adjoining him now in controversy; that there was no division fence between them; that in the spring of 1870 he told her he wished to build a fence, and she sent her son to show him the line, which he did, and where he thus built the fence; that he also showed defendant where Alexander established the center of the section; that the corner established by Ross is a considerable distance south of this, and that afterward he planted an orchard and made improvements on the land. Defendant then offered a petition for change of road signed by Mrs. Jeffries and others, and a plat of the survey, as follows:
TABULAR OR GRAPHIC MATERIAL SET AT THIS POINT IS NOT DISPLAYABLE
Defendant introduced Thomas C. Duggins, who testi. fied he was at one time county surveyor of Saline county, and as such had “established the southwest corner of section 13, which is also the northwest corner of section 24, by running a line from the southwest corner of section 24, north to the quarter section corner on the west line of section 13; government corners at both ends of this line being known at that time; corrected back, divided up this line run by me in proper proportions, and set corner to sections 13, 14, 23 and 24.”
Plaintiff then offered rebutting evidence, tending to impeach the testimony of the defendant in relation especially to his statement that Mrs. Jeffries' son had shown him the dividing line.
There was conflicting evidence as to the acts of Mrs. Jeffries and her statements concerning the dividing line, but this was substantially the testimony in the case.
The court then gave instruction number one for the plaintiff, as follows:
I. Section 24, township 50, range 21, within which the land in dispute is situated, is a section recognized by law as an interior section, and in such sections the legal rule for establishing lost quarter section corners is to establish the same at a point equi-distant from the corresponding corners of the section; and the true location of the southwest corner of the land claimed by plaintiff is at a point half way between the southwest corner and the northwest corner of said section 24; and the true line between the west half of the northwest quarter and the west half of the southwest quarter would be a straight line between said point last mentioned and a point on the east line of said section, equi-distant from or half way between the northeast and southeast corners of said section, provided the quarter section corner on the east line of said section 24, as established by government, is also shown to be lost.
The appellant insists that this instruction ought not to have been given, because it is misleading and erroneous, and there is no evidence upon which to base it. It attempts to lay down the rule by which lost quarter section corners may be established. The evidence at least tends to show that the true location of the southwest corner of the land claimed by plaintiff is at the place specified in the instruction, and the evidence is sufficient upon which to base it; provided it is the true and legal mode for ascertaining the lost quarter section corners.
The land in controversy is in a section recognized by law as an interior section. The laws of the State, (R. S., § 7403,) prescribe the mode of ascertaining lost corners, and it is upon this statute the appellant has attempted to base his fourth instruction, and insists the judgment must be reversed because of its refusal. But the learned counsel for the appellant seems to have altogether overlooked the fact that the laws of the United States and the regulations thereunder prescribe and fix the manner of establishing lost quarter section corners, both interior and exterior. The 1st section of the act of congress, (3 U. S. Stat. at Large, 566,) amongst other things, provides: “And the corners and contents of half quarter sections * * shall be ascertained in the manner * * prescribed by the 2nd section of an act entitled ‘an act concerning the mode of surveying, etc.,” (2 U. S. Stat. at Large, 313,) “and...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Goltermann v. Schiermeyer
...98; Lindell v. McLaughlin, 30 Mo. 28; Soward v. Johnston, 65 Mo. 102; Melton v. Smith, 65 Mo. 315; Slagel v. Murdock, 65 Mo. 522; Lemmon v. Hartsook, 80 Mo. 13; Dibble Rogers, 13 Wend. 536; Rockwell v. Adams, 6 Wend. 467; McCormack v. Barnum, 10 Wend. 104; Jackson v. McConnell, 12 Wend. 421......
-
Davis v. Alexander
...59 Mo. 80-87; Martin et al. v. Bonsack et al., 61 Mo. 556-559; Hannibal & St. Joseph Railroad Company v. Clark, 68 Mo. 371-374; Lemmon v. Hartsook, 80 Mo. 13-22; Mississippi County v. Vowels, 101 Mo. 225-228, 14 S. W. 282; Dunlap v. Griffith, 146 Mo. 283-294, 47 S. W. 917; Whitaker v. Whita......
-
Keen v. Schnedler
...514; Kincaid v. Dormey, 47 Mo. 337; Tamm v. Kellogg, 49 Mo. 122, 123; Thomas v. Babb, 45 Mo. 384; Hamilton v. West, 63 Mo. 93; Lemmon v. Hartsook, 80 Mo. 13; Smith v. Lindsey, 89 Mo. 76; 3 Wash. on Real 125. (3) Defendants asked for the same declaration of law themselves. Defendants' instru......
- Goltermann v. Schiermeyer