Simpson v. Stoddard County
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | Fox |
| Citation | Simpson v. Stoddard County, 173 Mo. 421, 73 S.W. 700 (Mo. 1903) |
| Decision Date | 20 March 1903 |
| Parties | SIMPSON v. STODDARD COUNTY. I. & J. H. HIMMELBERGER v. SAME. |
2. By Act Feb. 23, 1853 (Laws 1852-53, p. 108), the state donated swamp lands received from the federal government, located in S. county, to such county; and Act Nov. 4, 1857 (Laws 1857, p. 32), declared that such lands previously or thereafter patented to the state should vest in full title and belong to the counties in which they lie. The swamp-land laws were subsequently revised and included in Gen. St. 1865, c. 48, § 1, which provided that all such lands were donated to the counties in which they were respectively situated, and "should be the absolute property of such counties for the purposes designated," which consisted of the drainage and reclamation of such lands, and provided that after costs of reclaiming, draining, and selling such lands had been paid, the balance of the price should be paid to the school fund. By Act March 27, 1868 (Laws 1868, p. 68), such lands were directed to be sold by the sheriff at public sale for not less than $1.25 per acre; but by Act March 10, 1869 (Sess. Laws 1869, p. 66), the register of lands was directed to prepare patents from the states to the several counties of such swamp lands, and section 6 gave to the county courts full power to sell and dispose of the same in the same manner as other real estate belonging to the county. Held, that under the latter act the county court had full power to sell swamp lands granted to the county at private sale for less than $1.25 per acre.
3. Act March 27, 1868, § 8 (Laws 1868, p. 68), providing for the sale of swamp lands, the title to which had previously vested in the counties in which the lands were located, declares that the net proceeds of sales of such lands, after defraying certain expenses, shall be paid into the county treasury for the benefit of the county school fund. Act March 10, 1869 (Sess. Laws 1869, p. 66), provided that the several county courts should have full power and control over such lands, with a right to sell and dispose of the same in the same manner and with like effect as conveyances of other county real estate. Held, that the trust in favor of the school fund with relation to the sale of such lands applied only to "the net proceeds of the sales," and did not run with the land, so as to charge a bona fide purchaser with the county's misapplication of such proceeds.
4. Where a county court, having power to sell swamp lands belonging to the county, appointed a commissioner to make the sales, and the commissioner's patent, which was the only paper relating to the conveyance entitled to registration in the land records of the county, was regular on its face, and there was nothing therein to indicate any insufficiency in the order appointing the commissioner and authorizing such sale, a subsequent bona fide purchaser of the land was not charged with notice of defects in such order for which the conveyance might have been set aside.
5. Where swamp lands granted to a county were conveyed by the county court under statutory authority, and thereafter passed to bona fide purchasers, who took without notice of defects in the order authorizing the sale, and occupied and paid taxes on the lands to the county for over 30 years, claiming to be the owners in fee, the county was barred by laches from subsequently claiming title to the lands on the ground that the conveyance was invalid.
6. Laws 1901, p. 202, provided that in all cases where county courts of the state prior to 1880 sold swamp lands in their respective counties, and caused patents to be issued therefor, and the patentees have been claiming such lands and paying county and state taxes for more than 20 years, the grant shall be deemed and held to be valid, and no action shall be maintained for the purpose of setting aside or calling in question such patents. Held, that since a county was a mere political division, in subordination to the state, from which the swamp lands were acquired, such act did not impair the county's vested right, but was a valid exercise of the state's power to validate the title to such lands as had been patented, and for which the full consideration had been paid.
7. Where an action was brought to quiet title to swamp lands conveyed by a county under defective proceedings, and while the cause was pending on appeal, but before decision, an act was passed curing such defects, and providing that such grants shall be held good and valid, and that no action should be maintained for the purpose of setting aside or calling in question such patent or patents, the appellate court had power to consider and enforce such statute in the determination of such appeal.
In Banc. Appeal from Circuit Court, Stoddard County; J. L. Fort, Judge.
Separate actions by A. P. Simpson and by I. & J. H. Himmelberger against Stoddard county to quiet title to swamp lands. From judgments in favor of plaintiffs, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
These cases originated in Stoddard county, Mo. The questions involved in both cases being practically the same, they were consolidated by agreement of the parties, with the consent of the court, and tried as one case.
The suits in these cases were instituted to quiet title to certain lands, set out in the petition, located in Stoddard county, Mo. The lands involved in this controversy are what is known as swamp or overflowed lands. The petitions in the two cases, as well as the answers, present practically the same questions; and, there being no point presented for review upon the pleadings, we will not burden this opinion by inserting them. There is no dispute as to the facts, other than upon the character of the claim of Ringer against Stoddard county. As to that, there is a conflict of testimony as to whether his cause of action was an ordinary claim against the county, or upon warrants upon the swamp-land fund. We regard this dispute as to the nature of the cause of action in the suit of Ringer against the county as being immaterial as to the vital questions involved. At least, we have concluded that a conclusion reached upon one side or the other upon this disputed question would shed but little light upon the main points of difference in this cause.
On the 13th day of March, 1868, Louis M. Ringer obtained a judgment against Stoddard county for $1,136.90, and in August following caused an execution to be issued and levied upon 107,000 acres of land—the same being swamp and overflowed lands conveyed by the state of Missouri to Stoddard county for the purpose of reclamation and drainage, as set out in the act of conveyance—and had the land sold under the execution, and at said sale the plaintiff's grantors purchased the land in controversy in this suit. At a special term of the county court held in April, 1869, the court entered an order of record, compromising with the purchasers of said land at the sheriff's sale, which order of compromise made by the county court of Stoddard county is as follows, to wit (County Court Record, Book B, page 265):
...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
State ex rel. Owen v. Donald
...Adams County, 100 U. S. 61, 25 L. Ed. 563;Mills County v. Railroad Co., 107 U. S. 557, 2 Sup. Ct. 654, 27 L. Ed. 578;Simpson v. Stoddard County, 173 Mo. 455, 73 S. W. 700. The foregoing is a most illuminating background for the legislative dealing with the subject when the ideas of the conv......
-
State ex Inf. McKittrick v. Mo. Utilities Co.
...Term. Railroad Co., 268 Mo. 55, 186 S.W. 1080; Town of Montevallo v. Village School Dist., 268 Mo. 223, 186 S.W. 1078; Simpson v. Stoddard County, 173 Mo. 463, 73 S.W. 700; School District v. Correll, 220 Mo. App. 330, 286 S.W. 136; State of Ohio v. Carr, 191 Fed. 268; Spokane St. Ry. Co. v......
-
State ex Inf. Shartel v. Mo. Utilities Co.
...in good faith claimed by it with the acquiescence of the public officials and by the expenditure of large sums of money. Simpson v. Stoddard Co., 173 Mo. 463; State ex rel. v. Town of Westport, 116 Mo. 595; Town of Montevallo v. School District, 268 Mo. 224; State ex rel. v. Town of Mansfie......
-
State ex rel. Wabash Ry. Co. v. Pub. Serv. Comm.
...to claim the benefits which the contract gives to it. Union Depot Co. v. St. Louis, 76 Mo. 396; Fox v. Windes, 127 Mo. 512; Simpson v. Stoddard County, 173 Mo. 421; Wilson v. Drainage Dist., 257 Mo. 289; Consolidated School Dist. No. 2 v. Cooper, 28 S.W. (2d) 384; St. Joseph v. St. J. Term.......