Moore v. Woodruff

• Decision Date: 08 December 1898
• Citation: 146 Mo. 597,48 S.W. 489
• Parties: MOORE v. WOODRUFF.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

48 S.W. 489

146 Mo. 597

MOORE v. WOODRUFF.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.

December 8, 1898.

TAX SALES — TITLE ACQUIRED — GOVERNMENT LANDS.

A certified copy of a tract book of the United States land office, from description in which certain lands were taxed, as to a particular piece of property, was manifestly erroneous, as showing a certain person the owner of 80 acres under a homestead right, and not 40 acres, the limit of such right. The deed registry of the county showed that the apparent owner of such homestead right never owned the land in controversy; that his patent covered only a small piece of such land, and that the title to the land in controversy was in another, by a patent from the government, at the date of the tax sale; and that at the time the taxes were levied the title to the land was in the United States, and the land not subject to taxation. Held, that the purchaser at tax sale acquired no title.

Appeal from circuit court, Lawrence county; J. C. Lamson, Judge.

Action by E. P. Moore against Wiley P. Woodruff. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals. Reversed.

W. N. Davis, S. Jennings, and N. Gibbs, for appellant. Jos. French and R. H. Davis, for respondent.

ROBINSON, J.

This is an action in ejectment by respondent to recover from appellant the possession of the S. E. ¼ of the N. W. ¼ of section 7, township 27 N., of range 25 W., in Lawrence county, Mo. The plaintiff claims title by virtue of a sheriff's deed to the land under an execution sale on a judgment for taxes. To sustain the issues on his part, plaintiff offered in evidence the map of the tract book kept In the county clerk's office of Lawrence county (which is a certified copy of the tract book in the United States district land office at Springfield, Mo., in so far as the same relates to the lands lying within the boundaries of that county), in which it appeared that all of lot 1 of the N. W. ¼ of section 7, above named, had been patented to one James W. Curtis March 25, 1872, on homestead certificate No. 583. Plaintiff next read in evidence a sheriff's deed to himself of the property in controversy, made in virtue of a sale thereof February 16, 1894, on an execution issued on a judgment rendered in a suit instituted by the collector of Lawrence county on the ___ day of ___, 1893, against one J. W. Curtis, as the owner thereof, to enforce the lien of a certain tax bill against same for the year 1889. Plaintiff then offered testimony showing the value of the monthly rents and profits of the premises, and that the defendant was in the possession of same, and rested his case. The defendant, to overcome the prima facie case thus made against him, offered testimony tending to show that he made his application to homestead the land in suit, and moved upon it, in the year 1887, and had continuously resided thereon since that time up to the day of the trial of this cause in the circuit court; that he knew nothing of the tax proceedings against his land that resulted in its sale at which plaintiff became the purchaser until after the present suit of ejectment had been begun against him, and that on the 15th day of December, 1892, he obtained from the. United States a patent to said land on his homestead application made therefor in the year 1887; and that he caused said patent to be recorded in the recorder's office of Lawrence county on the 26th day of April, 1893. Defendant's patent, showing the last-recited facts, was then read in evidence to the court. Next the defendant read in evidence a patent from the United States to James W. Curtis for the N. ½ of lot No. 1 of the N. W. ¼ of section 7, township 27, N., of range 25 W., issued on homestead certificate No. 583, bearing date March 25, 1872, that had been filed for record in the recorder's office of Lawrence county since March 7, 1882. On the back of said patent also appears the following writing: "General Land Office. Washington, D. C., Feby. 27, 1886. This is to certify that the true area of the W. ½ lot 1, N. W. ¼ of Sec. 7, Tp. 27 N., R. 25 west, described in the within patent, is forty (40) acres, as shown by the plat of survey in this office. S. H. Stockstager, Asst. Commissioner." Upon these facts, which seem to be wholly undisputed by either party, the court rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff for the possession of the property in suit, and that he have and recover of defendant the sum of $1 for his damages, and $20 per month from the 5th day of March, 1895, until restitution of the premises is made, with costs of suit. Defendant then filed his motion for a new trial, which being overruled, the case was brought to this court on...