Peting v. De Lore

• Decision Date: 31 October 1879
• Citation: 71 Mo. 13
• Parties: PETING, et al., Appellants, v. DE LORE.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

71 Mo. 13

PETING, et al., Appellants,

v.DE LORE.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

October Term, 1879.

Appeal from St. Louis Court of Appeals.

AFFIRMED.

G. M. Stewart and I. D. Foulon for appellants.

Sam. Reber for respondents.

NORTON, J.

This is an action of ejectment instituted to recover part of a common field lot of one and a half by forty arpents, in the Common Field of Carondelet. Defendants, in their answer, deny plaintiffs' title, and set up title in themselves. The cause was submitted on the following agreed statement of facts: It is agreed, for the purposes of this case, that the land in controversy is part of a confirmation for one and a half by forty arpents, in the name of Peter La Puente's legal representatives, designated in Recorder Bates' report, referred to below, as “ancient lot in Field of Carondelet.” It was a concession for one and a half by forty arpents in Prairie Catalan, granted by the Spanish Lieutenant-Governor Pedro Piernas, to Peter La Puente, 25th June, 1775, in which the land is described as being bounded on one side by L. Le May, and on the other by vacant land. It was afterward, to-wit: by the act of Congress of June 13th, 1812, presented to Recorder Bates on the 30th day of December, 1813, and evidence was taken by him and the same was included in his report, and submitted to Congress for approval 2nd day of February, 1816, as being a claim that should, in his opinion, be confirmed and surveyed according to possession. It was confirmed by the first section of the act of Congress of the 13th day of June, 1812, and afterward by act of Congress of April 29th, 1816, to Peter La Puente's legal representatives, to be surveyed according to possession. In pursuance to this confirmation a survey of the said grant was made in 1839, and was approved on the 1st day of August, 1846, and was returned to the United States Recorder on the 30th day of June, 1862, and then recorded in book F, page 182, United States Recorder's Office. Amadee Peting, one of the plaintiffs, claims under a deed duly executed to him on the _____ day of _____, 1874, by Francois Marchalles and wife, conveying all the right, title and interest of the said Marchalles and wife. as heir of Peter La Puente, to the land in question. The said Mrs. Marchalles is an heir of La Puente, was married to said Marchalles in 1845, and since that date has been continuously a femme covert. The other plaintiffs are the surviving descendants and legal representatives of Peter La Puente, and one of them, Josephine De Hatre, wife of Francis De Hatre, has been continuously a femme covert since 1861. No conveyance of the land in question, or of any interest therein, has ever been made by La Puente, or his legal representatives, save the conveyance by Marchalles and wife to Peting, above stated. No patent for the above land was ever issued by the United States Government. The land granted to Peter La Puente, and surveyed in survey 95, was a common field lot in the common fields of Carondelet, and, as such, is bounded south by a common field lot granted and confirmed and surveyed to Le May's representatives by United States survey No. 94, and north by common field lot...