Wickersham v. Woodbeck
| Decision Date | 31 July 1874 |
| Citation | 57 Mo. 59 |
| Parties | MARY WICKERSHAM Respondent, v. A. C. WOODBECK, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Cedar Circuit Court.
R. F. Buller, for Appellant.
W. D. Huff, for Respondent.
This is an action of ejectment for forty acres of land in Cedar County. The land in controversy is a portion of the lands acquired by the State under the Act of Congress of Sept. 4th, 1841, entitled “An act to appropriate the proceeds of the sales of public lands and to grant pre-emption rights.”
The plaintiff had a patent from the State dated Oct. 10th, 1867, reciting a purchase on the 3rd day of Oct. 1867. The answer set up the statute of limitations. The answer further set up as a defense, that on Feb. 13th, 1860, one N. J. Jones was receiver and James S. Jones was register of the State Land Office at Springfield, Mo., and that on said day one David Lindley purchased from them as agents of the State, the land in controversy at the price of fifty dollars or $1.25 per acre; that the said Lindley paid the purchase money and received from said register and receiver a duplicate receipt therefor and certificate of location thereof, and immediately thereafter took possession of the same, claiming title thereto, and remained in visible, open and notorious possession thereof, until the 18th day of October 1867, when he sold the land to defendant for $280, which defendant paid in cash, and immediately went into possession and has remained in possession ever since up to the time of commencing this action.
The case was tried at the May Term, 1872 of the Circuit Court of Cedar County. The plaintiff introduced the patent from the State in 1867, and rested. The defendant then offered in evidence, a paper purporting to be a duplicate receipt and certificate of location of the land in controversy, dated Feb. 13th, 1860, and signed by the register and receiver of the State Land Office at Springfield, with proof that the signatures were genuine and that the officers signing it were State officers or acted as such at that time. These duplicates were as follows:
State Land Office at Springfield, Mo., Feb. 13th, 1860.
This evidence was excluded by the court, on the ground that the official character of the State register and receiver could not be established by parol evidence, and that the duplicate was not the proper evidence of an entry at the land office.
The defendant then offered to prove that Lindley had taken possession of the land and made improvements...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stonum v. Davis
...v. McGee, 75 Mo. 522; Abernathy v. Dennis, 49 Mo. 469; School District v. George, 50 Mo. 195; McCarthy v. Alderson, 54 Mo. 430; Wickersham v. Woodbeck, 57 Mo. 59 Birch v. Winston, 57 Mo. 62. (12) The filing of the homestead application by defendant did not stop the running of the State Stat......
-
Wilcox v. Phillips
...had no right to patent it to plaintiff. The right to a patent once vested as respects the Government is equivalent to a patent. [Wickersham v. Woodbeck, 57 Mo. 59; Wirth v. Branson, 98 U.S. 118, 25 L.Ed. Stark v. Starrs, 73 U.S. 402, 18 L.Ed. 925.] "While the State has no right to control t......
-
Bird v. Sellers
... ... Canfield, 67 ... Mo. 52; School Directors v. Georges, 50 Mo. 194; ... McCartney v. Alderson, 54 Mo. 230; Wickerscham ... v. Woodbeck, 57 Mo. 59; Burch v. Winston, 57 ... Mo. 62; Abernathy v. Dennis, 49 Mo. 469; ... Railroad v. McGee, 75 Mo. 525; O'Neil v. St ... Louis, 8 ... ...
-
Stonum v. Davis
... ... Stoddard ... County, 173 Mo. 421; Abernathy v. Dennis, 49 ... Mo. 469; School District v. Georges, 50 Mo. 195; ... Wickersham v. Woodbeck, 57 Mo. 320; Birch v ... Winston, 57 Mo. 62; Sexton v. Dunklin County, ... 246 S.W. 195; General Am. Life Ins. Co. v. Dunklin ... ...