Watson v. Bissell

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Missouri
Writing for the CourtNAPTON
PartiesWATSON et al., Respondents, v. BISSELL, Appellant.
Decision Date31 March 1858

27 Mo. 220

WATSON et al., Respondents,
v.
BISSELL, Appellant.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

March Term, 1858.


1. Where the possession of land by a party in whose favor it is sought to invoke the presumption of a deed is entirely consistent with title in another--as where a father (in whose behalf the presumption is invoked as against his son and the son's heirs) is in possession of land during the minority of the son, or after the death of the son, at which time the law devolved a life interest in the land of the son upon the father--such possession will not authorize the presumption of a conveyance.

2. Declarations of a person in possession of land as a life tenant cannot be received in evidence to elevate his life estate into an estate in fee.

Appeal from St. Louis Land Court.

This was an action to recover possession of three fifty-fifths of a tract of land confirmed to Leon N. St. Cyr. There was a recovery had as to one fifty-fifth of said tract of land in behalf of Virginia Christy, one of the plaintiffs. The other plaintiffs were cut off by the rulings of the court on the statute of limitations. With respect to said Virginia, it was admitted that if she was entitled to recover she was entitled to recover one fifty-fifth part. It appeared that Virginia Christy was a daughter of Israel Reed Christy, who was a son of William Christy, who died in 1839; that said William and his wife, Constance, had five children including said Israel, all of whom survived their mother, who died in 1822 or 1823; that said Virginia was the only surviving child of said Israel, and was ten years old at the time of the trial. Said Constance, the mother of Israel, was the daughter of Hyacynth St. Cyr, who had twelve children, one of whom was Leon N. St. Cyr, who was born in 1787, and who, about the year 1809, went away and was never heard of again, and was supposed to have been drowned in the Mississippi river. The father and mother of said Leon N. St. Cyr died in 1826. Israel Reed Christy was born in 1816 and died in 1851. Constance, wife of William Christy, was born in November, 1785, and was married in 1807. The land sought to be recovered was confirmed to said Leon N. St. Cyr. It appeared in evidence that Hyacynth St. Cyr was in possession of this

[27 Mo. 221]

land from about 1800 or 1802 until 1817, when he conveyed the same to Joseph Brazeau, from whom defendant has a regular chain of title. The defendant offered to prove that Hyacynth St. Cyr (the father), claimed the land in question as his own, and publicly declared that it belonged to him from 1802 to 1817, when he sold to Brazeau. The court excluded this testimony.

It is deemed unnecessary to set forth the instructions given and refused. The court refused to give...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 practice notes
  • Graham v. Stroh, No. 35487.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • May 26, 1938
    ...105 S.W. (2d) 941; Johnson v. Burks, 103 Mo. App. 221, 77 S.W. 133; Armstrong v. Johnston, 93 Mo. App. 492, 67 S.W. 733; Watson v. Bissell, 27 Mo. 220; Sec. 1723, R.S. 1929. (6) Decedent's statements regarding verbal contact were erroneously admitted. The testimony of Louis Blase to the eff......
  • Platt v. Huegel, No. 28950.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • November 18, 1930
    ...App. 39; Farmer's Bank v. Barbee, 198 Mo. 465; Dunnigan v. Green, 165 Mo. 98; Criddle's Admr. v. Criddle, 21 Mo. 522; Watson v. Bissell, 27 Mo. 220; Armstrong v. Johnson, 93 Mo. App. 492; Miller v. Quick, 158 Mo. 495. (7) The fact that the chancellor (who saw the witnesses) declared a trust......
  • Pantz v. Nelson, No. 19473.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • December 4, 1939
    ...Cornelius Roach for respondent. (1) The trial court properly refused to admit Exhibit 15. 22 C.J., p. 272, par. 271; Watson v. Bissell, 27 Mo. 220; Ragsdals v. Achuff, 324 Mo. 1159, 27 S.W. (2d) 6; State ex rel. Gneckow v. Hostetter et al., 105 S.W. (2d) 929; Johnson v. Mason, 163 S.W. 260;......
  • Dunn v. Miller
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • March 23, 1880
    ...is entirely consistent with the title in another, said possession will not authorize the presumption of a conveyance.-- Watson v. Bissell, 27 Mo. 220. No “presumptions” can be made against the rights of a married woman; her hands are tied.-- Meegan v. Boyle, 19 How. 149, 150. HENRY M. BRYAN......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
9 cases
  • Graham v. Stroh, No. 35487.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • May 26, 1938
    ...105 S.W. (2d) 941; Johnson v. Burks, 103 Mo. App. 221, 77 S.W. 133; Armstrong v. Johnston, 93 Mo. App. 492, 67 S.W. 733; Watson v. Bissell, 27 Mo. 220; Sec. 1723, R.S. 1929. (6) Decedent's statements regarding verbal contact were erroneously admitted. The testimony of Louis Blase to the eff......
  • Platt v. Huegel, No. 28950.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • November 18, 1930
    ...App. 39; Farmer's Bank v. Barbee, 198 Mo. 465; Dunnigan v. Green, 165 Mo. 98; Criddle's Admr. v. Criddle, 21 Mo. 522; Watson v. Bissell, 27 Mo. 220; Armstrong v. Johnson, 93 Mo. App. 492; Miller v. Quick, 158 Mo. 495. (7) The fact that the chancellor (who saw the witnesses) declared a trust......
  • Pantz v. Nelson, No. 19473.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • December 4, 1939
    ...Cornelius Roach for respondent. (1) The trial court properly refused to admit Exhibit 15. 22 C.J., p. 272, par. 271; Watson v. Bissell, 27 Mo. 220; Ragsdals v. Achuff, 324 Mo. 1159, 27 S.W. (2d) 6; State ex rel. Gneckow v. Hostetter et al., 105 S.W. (2d) 929; Johnson v. Mason, 163 S.W. 260;......
  • Dunn v. Miller
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • March 23, 1880
    ...is entirely consistent with the title in another, said possession will not authorize the presumption of a conveyance.-- Watson v. Bissell, 27 Mo. 220. No “presumptions” can be made against the rights of a married woman; her hands are tied.-- Meegan v. Boyle, 19 How. 149, 150. HENRY M. BRYAN......
  • 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