Mason v. Pitt
| Decision Date | 31 July 1855 |
| Parties | MASON, Appellant, v. PITT, Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
1. The failure of the proprietor of a town to record a plat of it, will not prevent the title from passing to a purchaser. The statute imposes no penalty on the vendee.
Appeal from Weston Court of Common Pleas.
Action for the possession of lot 48, in the town of Winston. The petition alleged that a tract of land was patented to Joseph Winston; that Winston conveyed the land, “with the town of Winston thereon situate,” to William M. Macey; that Macey conveyed to plaintiff the lot in controversy, by a deed annexed to the petition; and that defendant had wrongfully entered into possession of said lot.
The answer admitted the patent to Winston and the conveyance from him to Macey, and that Macey executed and delivered to plaintiff “an instrument purporting to be a deed of conveyance of lot 48,” in the town of Winston, but denied that there was any such town situate on the tract of land patented to Winston, or that there was “any such lot on said land, so known and described in any plat or survey of said town;” and alleged that the deed to plaintiff conveyed no title, and was void. The defendant admitted that he entered into possession of a lot on the tract patented to Winston.
The cause was tried without a jury, but the record contains no finding of the facts, other than a statement in the entry of judgment that “the plaintiff failed to prove that he was the owner of the lot named in his petition, or that there was any such lot or town lot upon the tract of land named in plaintiff's petition, or that defendant had ever been wrongfully in possession of the lot described in the petition.”
The bill of exceptions showed that the plaintiff at the trial offered to read in evidence the deed annexed to his petition, and that it was excluded, but whether for the reason that the original was not accounted for, or that it passed no title, because the plat of the town was unrecorded, was a matter about which the counsel seemed to differ, and which the bill of exceptions did not show.
Mr. Adams, for appellant.
1. There is no such finding of facts as is contemplated by the new Code. The finding should be written and signed by the judge and filed in the cause, and not made up by the clerk in the entry of judgment. If, however, it is to be regarded as a finding, it is insufficient. No fact is found. It merely states that there was a “failure of proof.” 2. The only question in the case is, whether the deed from Macey to plaintiff was void, because no town plat had been made of the town of Winston; and on this point, it is insisted that a deed for a town lot will pass the title, notwithstanding no plat has been recorded. This is very different from the case in 7 Mo. Rep.
Mr. Vories, for respondent.
1. The paper purporting to be a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United Shoe Machinery Co. v. Ramlose
...have placed it. In support of this contention counsel for respondent cite and rely upon the cases of Downing v. Ringer, 7 Mo. 585; Mason v. Pitt, 21 Mo. 391; Zinc and Lead Co. v. Zinc Mining Co., 221 Mo. 7, S.W. 31. This contention, in our opinion, is unsound. That rule never applies except......
-
Central Coal & Coke Co. v. Optimo Lead & Zinc Co.
...v. Const. Co., 124 Mo.App. 366; Thompson on Corporations, sec. 7955; Rollins v. McAntire, 87 Mo. 496; Downing v. Ringer, 7 Mo. 585; Mason v. Pitt, 21 Mo. 391; Roller Robinson, 202 Mo. 533; Shoe Co. v. Ramlose, 132 S.W. 1133; Barnett v. Timberlick, 57 Mo. 501. OPINION COX, J. Defendant, Opti......
-
Vermont Loan & Trust Co. v. Hoffman
...37 N. J. L. 437; Corinne v. Abbott, 54 N.H. 469; Aiken v. Blaisdell, 41 Vt. 655-666; Insurance Co. v. McMillan, 24 Ohio St. 67-79; Mason v. Pitt 21 Mo. 391; Thompson Corporations, secs. 7955-7958; Morawetz on Private Corporations, 2d ed., sec. 665; 2 Beach on Corporations, sec. 415; Clark o......
-
Sharp v. Richardson
...conveyance as the statute does not declare the transaction void and there is no penalty on the vendee. The principle announced in Mason v. Pitt has been sustained our later cases. [See Marvin v. Elliott, 99 Mo. 616, 12 S.W. 899, and United Shoe Machinery Co. v. Ramlose, 231 Mo. 508, 132 S.W......