Niel v. Granger
Decision Date | 01 June 1915 |
Docket Number | No. 17088.,17088. |
Parties | NIEL et al. v. GRANGER et al. |
Court | Missouri 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.
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:
etc.
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-
Robert v. Davis
... ... 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
...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
-
Heagy v. Miller
...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......