Tyler v. Magwire

• Decision Date: 01 December 1872
• Citation: 17 Wall. 253,21 L.Ed. 576,84 U.S. 253
• Parties: TYLER v. MAGWIRE
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

84 U.S. 253

21 L.Ed. 576

17 Wall. 253

TYLER v. MAGWIRE.

December Term, 1872

APPEAL from the Supreme Court of Missouri; the case being thus:

The constitution of Missouri ordains:

'That the right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate.'

The code of the same State enacts:

'There shall be in this State but one form of action for the enforcement or protection of private rights, and the redress or the prevention of private wrongs, which shall be denominated a civil action.¹

'Suits may be instituted in courts of record by filing in the office of the clerk of the proper court, a petition setting forth the plaintiff's cause or causes of action, and remedy sought, &c.²

'The first pleading on the part of the plaintiff is the petition, which shall contain: (1.) The title of the cause, specifying the name of the court and county in which the action is brought, and names of parties to the action, plaintiffs and defendants. (2.) A plain, concise statement of the facts constituting a cause of action, without unnecessary repetition. (3.) A demand of the relief to which a plaintiff may suppose himself entitled.³

'The only pleading on the part of the defendant is either a demurrer or an answer.⁴

'SECTION 6. The defendant may demur to the petition when it shall appear upon the face thereof, either (1) that the court has no jurisdiction of the person of the defendant, or the subject of the action; or (2) that the plaintiff has no legal capacity to sue; or, &c., &c.

'SECTION 10. When any of the matters enumerated in section six (the last quoted section) do not appear upon the face of the petition, the objection may be taken by answer. If no such objection be taken either by demurrer or answer, the defendant shall be deemed to have waived the same, excepting only the objection to the jurisdiction of the court over the subject-matter of the action, and excepting the objection that the petition does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.'⁵

This provision of the constitution and these provisions of the code being in force, one Magwire, on the 18th of September, 1862, filed his petition in the Court of Common Pleas of St. Louis, Missouri, against Tyler and forty-three other defendants, stating that on the 1st of June, 1794, Joseph Brazeau had a grant of 4 x 20 arpents of land along the bank of the Mississippi River, near the village of St. Louis; that on the 9th of May, 1798, he sold and conveyed 4 x 16 arpents, being, the northern part of the tract, to Louis Labaume reserving the 4 x 4 arpcnts at the southern end for himself; that he, Magwire, the plaintiff, by a chain of conveyances, became the owner of said 4 x 4 arpents; that Labaume, after purchasing the said 4 x 16 arpents, February 15th, 1799, procured an extension of his limits west to the aggregate quantity of 360 arpents, and the same was surveyed to him April 10th, 1799; that this survey was made contrary to the terms of the grant to Labaume, and so that, by mistake or design, Labaume included in the survey of his enlarged grant the Brazeau tract, which he did not own; that on the 22d of September, 1810, the board of commissioners for the adjustment of land titles in Missouri confirmed to Brazeau his 4 x 4 arpents, and to Labaume his land; that afterwards, and notwithstanding the said 4 x 4 arpents justly and honestly belonged to the plaintiff, the defendants and others, in combination and confederacy, procured a survey to be made under the authority of the United States in such manner as to include the whole Brazeau tract in the claim of Labaume, and procured under like authority a patent to be issued granting the land covered by said survey to the legal representatives of said Labaume; that the said survey and patent of the Labaume confirmation were issued and procured by said defendants by fraud, covin, and misrepresentation; that on the 20th of May, 1862, the Brazeau confirmation of 4 x 4 arpents was surveyed inside the exterior limits of the survey and patent of Labaume, and on the 10th of June, 1862, a patent was issued to Brazeau, or his legal representatives, therefor; that each of the defendants claimed an interest in the said Brazeau tract, and was in possession thereof, and had received the rents and profits of the same; that every one of them had notice of the rights of the plaintiff under Brazeau, and that all the defendants had confederated and combined to keep the plaintiff out of possession of the lands claimed, and the rents and profits; that the patent and survey to Labaume's representatives were older than the patent and survey to Brazeau's representatives; that defendants continually assert the validity of the Labaume title and the invalidity of the Brazeau title, and that the said patent and survey for Labaume's representatives, so procured by fraud, covin, and misrepresentation, conflicted with the patent and survey for Brazeau's representatives, and constituted a cloud upon the plaintiff's title.

'Wherefore,'—thus ran the prayer of the plaintiff's petition 'to the end that equity and justice may be meted out to the plaintiff, and that he may be protected in his just rights,' the plaintiff prayed:

1. That the court would divest out of the defendants all right, title, and interest acquired or claimed by them and each of them under Labaume.

2. And would vest the same in the plaintiff.

3. And would put the plaintiff in possession.

4. And would cause an account to be taken of the rents and profits of the land, and give to the plaintiff judgment therefor.

5. And would give to him 'such other relief as might be proper in the case.'

The patent to Labaume's representatives granted all the land in its exterior limits, 'saving and reserving any valid adverse right that might exist to any part thereof.'

The patent to Brazeau's representatives granted all the land included in its exterior limits, 'saving and reserving any valid adverse right which might exist to any part thereof.'

The defendants answered on the merits of the case to the following effect:

1. That the 4 x 4 arpents confirmed to Brazeau were not properly located by the United States survey thereof inside of Labaume's survey.

2. That the confirmation to Brazeau was void.

3. That the survey for Brazeau's representatives was void for want of legal authority in the officers to make it.

4. That the patent to them was void for the same reason.

5. That the plaintiff, claiming under the confirmation and survey for Brazeau's representatives, was estopped to locate the land inside the Labaume patent, by matter in pais, long before their date.

6. That the survey and patent for Labaume's representatives vested a title in them in fee simple.

7. That the defendants had no notice of Brazeau's claim, and were innocent purchasers of the Labaume title.

8. That the plaintiff, claiming under Brazeau, was barred by the statute of limitations.

The defendants denied that any part of the 4 x 4 of Brazeau was inside the Labaume patent; that the patent or survey for Labaume's representatives was procured by fraud, covin, or misrepresentation; that the plaintiff had the Brazeau title to the 4 x 4.

They set forth a former suit and judgment against the plaintiff prior in date to the plaintiff's survey and patent, in bar of this suit.

And, finally, denied every averment in the plaintiff's petition in conflict with any part of their answer.

And, 'so having fully answered, the defendants asked for judgment and their costs.'

The cause 'having been submitted to the court for a decision on the plaintiff's petition, and the answers of all the defendants and the exhibits and other evidence in the cause,' the court found 'all the issues in the cause for the plaintiff;' that the survey for Labaume, in 1799, was made to include the Brazeau's land by mistake or design; that the land was situated inside of the Labaume survey and patent; and that the Labaume survey and patent were issued and procured by fraud and misrepresentation, and in combination and confederacy by the defendants to keep the plaintiff out of possession of his property, and its rents and profits.

The court then entered a decree extinguishing the claims of the defendants in these words:

'The 4 x 4 arpents is hereby decreed to the plaintiff, and all the right, title, and interest of each and every one of said defendants in and to said tract of land is hereby divested out of said defendants, and each of them, and is vested in and passed to plaintiff, to have and to hold to said plaintiff, his heirs, and assigns;' and 'it is ordered, adjudged, and decreed that plaintiff do have and recover of defendants respectively the rents and profits accrued during the respective possessions, and for as much as the court is not advised what is the amount and other particulars thereof, Alexander Martin is appointed commissioner to take an account,' &c.

As soon as this finding and decree was made, the defendants moved for a new trial, because the court had improperly received or rejected evidence; because of an alleged erroneous holding which it had made about the power of a Secretary of the Interior, and because the decision was against law and equity, and against the evidence and the weight of evidence. The motion for new trial was overruled, and the defendants appealed to the Supreme Court of Missouri. That court reversed the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas, and dismissed the plaintiff's petition. The grounds on which this reversal was made were not stated in the judgment as entered of record.⁶

The plaintiff claiming under a former patent from the United States then brought the case here,⁷ as within the 25th section of the Judiciary Act,⁸ under the assumption, of course, that the Supreme Court of Missouri had passed on his title set up under the United States, and had decided against it. It was here elaborately argued, and an opinion given by Mr. Justice Clifford in behalf of the court, in which it was decided 'that...