Wilhite v. Barr
Decision Date | 30 April 1878 |
Citation | 67 Mo. 284 |
Parties | WILHITE v. BARR, Appellant. |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Polk Circuit Court.--HON. R. W. FYAN, Judge.
Waldo P. Johnson for appellant.
I. What is claimed to be a certificate of the register in this case, is insufficient for many reasons. 1. John E. Waddill does not certify that he was at that time register of the land office at Springfield, nor was any evidence offered to show that he was. 2. The certificate does not state that, that to which it is attached, is a copy of any entry or memoranda, on any books of the office of any register. 3. But it does say, that the within plat, not plats, is a correct abstract of the records in this office, which negatives the idea, that it is a copy or even an extract from the records. 4. It only pretends that the within plat is a correct abstract of the records in the office, and does not pretend to certify that the county plats of Polk county were correct as shown by the records of his office. 5. Admit some one of the plats to be correct as certified, then which one, as it was the county plats of Polk county, which were offered and read in evidence, and the so-called certificate, defective as it was, only embraced one plat.
II. The plats had been changed; entries were placed thereon after they were first made, and after the attempt made to certify them. Title to real estate would not be safe, if it could be affected by such evidence.Joseph B. Upton for respondent.
I. The term “plat” is the well known name of a book containing a sectionized map of a county, together with the name of the original enterer of each tract of land embraced therein, and the date of such entry. The term “abstract,” as used in said certificate, is equivalent to, and synonymous with “copy,” or “ “plat,” and is certified to be a correct abstract (or copy) of the records in the land office.
II. The validity of the record entry cannot be impaired by other entries being made on such record, provided the entry in question remain intact. This entry was proven to have been on the record when certified by the Register, and could not be affected by other entries being made. Further, the evidence shows no mutilation or spoliation, but simply that additional entries were made, and that, too, by the custodian of the record. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the law will presume that entries made in a record by the custodian thereof are right and proper. This plat book was a public record of Polk county, and it was the duty of the custodian to make new entries therein. Whenever the officers of the United States Land Office notified him that...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Wilcox v. Phillips
...Carroll v. Stafford, 44 U.S. 441; Widdecombe v. Childers, 124 U.S. 404; Egbert v. Bond, 148 Mo. 23; Hadrick v. Beeler, 110 Mo. 91; Wilhite v. Barr, 67 Mo. 284; Callihan Davis, 90 Mo. 78; Johnson v. Fluetsch, 176 Mo. 470; Wirth v. Branson, 98 U.S. 118; Stark v. Starr, 73 U.S. 402. (2) At the......
-
Hedrick v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railroad Company
...book in the county clerk's office is sufficient to show the government has parted with the title and to recover on in ejectment. Wilhite v. Barr, 67 Mo. 284. It is unquestioned practice in ejectment, if plaintiff has not at hand a patent, to introduce and bottom his right to recover on the ......
-
Bell v. Ham
... ... establish the name of an apparent record owner of land ... Stewart v. Lead Belt Co., 200 Mo. 281; Wilhite ... v. Barr, 67 Mo. 284; Payne v. Lott, 90 Mo. 676; ... Nolan v. Taylor, 131 Mo. 224 ... Lew R ... Thomason for respondents ... ...
-
Wilcox v. Phillips
...the title of an entryman is sufficient upon which to maintain an action in ejectment. Callahan v. Davis, 90 Mo. 78, 2 S. W. 216; Wilhite v. Barr, 67 Mo. 284; Egbert v. Bond, 148 Mo. 23, 49 S. W. 873; Hedrick v. Beeler, 110 Mo. 91; 19 S. W. 492; Nolan v. Taylor, 131 Mo. 224, 32 S. W. 1144. W......