St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Ry. Co. v. McGee

Decision Date30 April 1882
Citation75 Mo. 522
PartiesTHE ST. LOUIS, IRON MOUNTAIN & SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY v. MCGEE, Appellant.
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

Appeal from Stoddard Circuit Court.--HON. R. P. OWEN, Judge.

REVERSED.

Ewing & Hough for appellant.

Smith & Krauthoff for respondent.

HOUGH, J.

This is an action of ejectment. The plaintiff recovered judgment, and the defendant has appealed to this court.

The following agreed statement was read at the trial: (1) The land sued for in this suit was a part of the lands granted by act of Congress, dated February 9th, 1853, to aid in building a railroad from a point on the Mississippi river opposite the mouth of the Ohio river, via Little Rock, to Fulton, Arkansas. (2.) Said land was sold to defendant by the Cairo & Fulton Railroad Company, a corporation duly organized under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Missouri, by a deed of conveyance in due form of law, January 3rd, 1859. Said deed was duly recorded in the office of the clerk of the circuit court of Stoddard county, Missouri, January 10th, 1859. (3) Defendant has lived and resided upon said land continuously from the date of purchase, using and cultivating the same as his own up to the institution of this suit, and has paid all the taxes and assessments made against said land since the date of his purchase. (4) Said land is included in the patent issued from the United States to the plaintiff in this suit, dated January 23rd, 1877.

The lands granted to the State of Missouri by the act of Congress of February 9th, 1853, were by the 3rd section of the act of the General Assembly of the State of Missouri of February 20th, 1855, granted to the Cairo & Fulton Railroad Company. On the 7th day of January, 1867, the Cairo & Fulton Railroad was conveyed by the State to McKay, Reed & Co., under and by virtue of the provisions of the act of February 19th, 1866. Thomas Allen having subsequently acquired their title to this road and its appurtenances, he and his associates, on the 23rd day of April, 1872, incorporated themselves under the act of March 20th, 1866, as “The Cairo, Arkansas & Texas Railroad Company.” This company was afterward consolidated with the “St. Louis & Iron Mountain Railroad Company,” under the name of “The St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Company.” The Cairo & Fulton Railroad was constructed as projected, and on the 23rd day of January, 1877, a patent issued to the plaintiff for the lands in controversy, together with others of the same class. This constitutes the title of the plaintiff.

The lands in controversy are more than forty miles from the starting point of the Cairo & Fulton Railroad on the Mississippi river, and it does not appear that a sufficient number of miles of said road had been constructed at the date of defendant's purchase, to authorize a sale of said land under the act of Congress of February 9th, 1853.

1. CARO & FULTON RAILROAD LANDS: congressional grant: forfeiture.

The Cairo & Fulton Railroad not having been completed within the time prescribed in the 5th section of the act of Congress of February, 1853, Congress passed an act on July 28th, 1866, to revive and extend the provisions of the act of February 9th, 1853, which declared that said act, “with all the provisions therein made, be, and the same is hereby revived and extended for the term of ten years from the passage of this act; and all the lands therein granted, which reverted to the United States under the provisions of said act, be and the same are hereby restored to the same custody, control and condition, and made subject to the uses and trusts in all respects as they were before and at the time such reversion...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 cases
  • Stonum v. Davis
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • April 3, 1941
    ...power to sell and dispose of said swamp lands. Simpson v. Stoddard County, 173 Mo. 421; Langlois v. Crawford, 27 Mo. 456; St. L.I.M. Ry. Co. v. McGee, 75 Mo. 522; Sexton v. Dunklin County, 246 S.W. 195; General Am. Life Ins. Co. v. Dunklin County, 96 S.W. (2d) 380; Sec. 11128, R.S. 1929; Ma......
  • Wilson v. Beckwith
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • June 29, 1897
    ...of law for that purpose, or through some legislative action legally equivalent to a judgment of ouster found at common law." Railroad v. McGee, 75 Mo. 522. So the title of the State and the Cairo & Fulton Railroad claiming through the State was not impressed with a trust upon the land and d......
  • Stonum v. Davis
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • April 3, 1941
    ...Ins. Co. v. Dunklin County, 96 S.W.2d 380; Simpson v. Stoddard County, 173 Mo. 421; Secs. 11128, and 11130, R. S. 1929; St. L., I. M. Ry. Co. v. McGee, 75 Mo. 522; Langlois v. Crawford, 27 Mo. 456; Titus Development Co., 264 Mo. 239, 174 S.W. 432; Russ v. Sims, 261 Mo. 27, 169 S.W. 69. (4) ......
  • Tracy v. Bittle
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • July 3, 1908
    ...possession cannot be acquired in lands dedicated to public uses. R. S. 1899, sec. 4270; Williams v. St. Louis, 120 Mo. 403; Railroad v. McGee, 75 Mo. 522, affirmed 115 469; St. Louis v. Railroad, 114 Mo. 13; Brown v. Carthage, 128 Mo. 10; Railroad v. Smith, 170 Mo. 327; Railroad v. Baker, 1......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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