State v. Fleming

• Court: Missouri Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: GAMBLE
• Citation: State v. Fleming, 19 Mo. 607 (Mo. 1854)
• Decision Date: 31 March 1854
• Parties: THE STATE, Respondent, v. FLEMING, Appellant.

19 Mo. 607

THE STATE, Respondent,

v.FLEMING, Appellant.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

March Term, 1854.

1. In an action by the State to recover a sixteenth section, the production of a survey is not necessary, where the answer sufficiently admits that the land claimed has been designated as a sixteenth section.

2. The statute of limitations does not run against the State.

Appeal from St. Francois Circuit Court.

There were two actions brought in the name of the State of Missouri to the use of the inhabitants of township thirty-four north, range seven east. One was an action in the nature of ejectment. The petition stated that on a certain day, the plaintiff was entitled to the possession of section sixteen in said township, and that the defendants afterwards entered into the said premises and unlawfully withheld from the plaintiff the possession thereof. The answer denied that the defendants unlawfully withheld the possession, and alleged that the title to said section sixteen was in Thomas Fleming, under whom they held. The other action was for the rents and profits. Thomas Fleming was subsequently admitted as sole defendant in both actions. On the trial, the plaintiff read in evidence the act of congress of March 6, 1820, and the ordinance of the people of Missouri of July 19, 1820, and proved by a witness that the land in controversy was the sixteenth section, to the admission of which last evidence the defendant excepted, on the ground that a survey was the only competent evidence. The defendant then exhibited the evidences of title, which are set out in the preceding case of The State v. Ham. Evidence was also offered tending to show that defendant and those under whom he claimed, had been in possession of the land since 1806. There was a judgment for the plaintiff in each case, from which the defendant appealed.

T. T. Gantt, for appellant.

Frissell & McCracken, for respondent.

GAMBLE, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

1. In these cases, the individuals who were actually in the occupancy of the land, were the defendants originally sued. They appeared and filed their answers, in which they recognize the land in dispute to be section sixteen, in township thirty-four north, range seven east, as stated in the petition. Their answers assert that the title to said section sixteen is in Thomas Fleming, who is their landlord. Thomas Fleming, as landlord, is admitted to defend, and the action, as to the original defendants, is dismissed and discharged....