Niel v. Granger

Decision Date01 June 1915
Docket NumberNo. 17088.,17088.
PartiesNIEL et al. v. GRANGER et al.
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

Appeal from Circuit Court, Stoddard County; W. S. C. Walker, Judge.

Action by James W. Niel and others against R. M. Granger and others. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Andrew W. Hunt, of Bloomfield, for appellants. Wammack & Welborn, of Bloomfield, for respondents.

BLAIR, J.

The petition in this case contained a count to quiet title and one in ejectment. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendants appeal.

An additional abstract of the record has been filed, and as it is not questioned by appellants, is to be accepted as correct. Upon the record before us the only issue is whether a patent executed by D. Starks Crumb as commissioner for Stoddard county conveys title, defendants admitting plaintiffs have acquired all title conveyed by it, and grounding their own claim upon possession of about one year. Their position is that plaintiffs have no title, and that their possession, though vesting no title in them, is good against all except the true owner, or one claiming the right to possession under him. The patent in question recites that:

"Whereas Dedrick F. Tiedeman, of Stoddard county, Missouri, has made full payment to Stoddard county, Missouri, for * * * the south half of section 25, Twp. 24, range 10 (and other lands) which land has been purchased by Dedrick F. Tiedeman: Now, know ye that the said Stoddard county, in consideration of the premises and in conformity to the law of Missouri in such cases provided, has given, granted, bargained, sold and conveyed, and by these presents does give, grant, bargain, sell and convey unto the said Dedrick F. Tiedeman, and to his heirs and assigns forever, the above-described lands, granted by the government of the United States to the state of Missouri and by said state of Missouri to said county. To have and to hold," etc.

"In testimony whereof, I, D. Starks. Crumb, Commissioner, duly appointed by the county court of said county to convey the above-described lands belonging to the said county, have caused these letters to become patent.

"Given under my hand and seal as Commissioner aforesaid, in said county, this 11th day of October, 1867.

                            "D. Starks Crumb, Commissioner."
                

"State of Missouri, County of Stoddard—ss.:

"Personally appeared before the undersigned clerk of the county court of said county on this 11th day of October, A. D. 1867, D. Starks Crumb, well known to me to be the same person who signed his name to the foregoing letters patent as a party thereto and who is the Commissioner duly appointed by the county court aforesaid to convey said land and acknowledged the same to be his voluntary act and deed in the capacity and for the use and purposes therein expressed. Given under my hand and sealed at office in Bloomfield, this day and year last aforesaid written.

                     "[Seal.] Adrian B. Owen
                                  "Clerk of County Court."
                

On the trial it was admitted the land in question was swamp land, and that the title thereto was, in 1867, in Stoddard county. The patent set out was then...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Robert v. Davis
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • 11 Septiembre 1940
    ... ... J. Sec., p. 1038, sec. 174; Tower v ... Moore, 52 Mo. 118; Callahan v. Shotwell, 60 Mo ... 398; Kessner v. Phillips, 189 Mo. 515; Niel v ... Granger (Mo.), 177 S.W. 644; Gann v. C. R. I. & P ... Ry., 319 Mo. 314; State v. Brown (Mo.), 134 ... S.W.2d 28; Dinkelman v ... ...
  • Robert v. Davis
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • 11 Septiembre 1940
    ...C.J. Sec., p. 1038, sec. 174; Tower v. Moore, 52 Mo. 118; Callahan v. Shotwell, 60 Mo. 398; Kessner v. Phillips, 189 Mo. 515; Niel v. Granger (Mo.), 177 S.W. 644; Gann v. C.R.I. & P. Ry., 319 Mo. 314; State v. Brown (Mo.), 134 S.W. (2d) 28; Dinkelman v. Hovekamp (Mo.), 80 S.W. (2d) 681; Aus......
  • State v. Southern
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 1 Junio 1915
  • Heagy v. Miller
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 2 Junio 1916
    ...and numerous other cases show this to be true. In those cases, however, the order appointing Elzroth was in evidence, or, as in Niel v. Granger, 177 S. W. 644, the point was not preserved. It is pointed out the costs were taxed against respondents in this case, and the briefs and record sug......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT