Williams v. Carpenter

• Citation: 28 Mo. 453
• Parties: WILLIAMS, Respondent, v. CARPENTER, Appellant.
• Decision Date: 31 March 1859
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

28 Mo. 453

WILLIAMS, Respondent,

v.CARPENTER, Appellant.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

March Term, 1859.

1. Hunt, United States recorder of land titles, upon proof of inhabitation, cultivation and possession made before him under the act of Congress of May 26, 1824, issued a certificate of confirmation to one Louis Lacroix. Held, that the title thus evidenced would not be made to enure to one Joseph Lacroix or his legal representatives by showing that it was said Joseph and not Louis that appeared before the recorder and made proof under the act of May 26, 1824, and that the certificate was issued by mistake to Louis instead of Joseph Lacroix.

2. Hunt's minutes of testimony taken by the act of Congress of May 26, 1824, are not admissible in evidence except to prove such facts as may be proved by hearsay. If professedly admitted to prove such facts, care should be taken that they are not used for other and illegal purposes.

Appeal from St. Louis Land Court.

This was an action in the nature of an action of ejectment to recover possession of a portion of a lot of one by forty arpens in the Grand Prairie common field, near St. Louis, being the lot covered by United States survey No. 1664. Both plaintiff and defendant claim title under the proof made before Recorder Hunt on the 3d of March, 1825, pursuant to the act of Congress of May 26, 1824. The plaintiff introduced in evidence, against the objection of defendant, certified copies of extracts from the registry of certificates of confirmation issued by Recorder Hunt under the act of May 26, 1824. From these it appeared that on the 3d of March, 1825, said Hunt had issued a certificate of confirmation to Louis Lacroix of a lot of one by forty arpens in the Grand Prairie, bounded on the north by Pierre Barribeau, and on the south by Paul Lagrandeur (alias Guitard); also that on the same day he issued a certificate of confirmation to Pierre Barribeau for a lot in the same prairie, bounded south by Joseph Lacroix. The court also admitted in evidence Hunt's minutes of testimony taken in proof of the claims of Louis Lacroix and Pierre Barribeau. Barribeau testified for Louis Lacroix. The entry of testimony in support of the claim of Pierre Barribeau is as follows: “Pierre Barribeau claiming one and a half by forty arpens in Big Prairie, St. Louis, bounded on the north by a lot formerly belonging to Benito Vasquez, on the south by Joseph Lacroix, and on the east and west by vacant land. Louis Lacroix, being duly sworn, says he knows said lot, and that the claimant Barribeau has been in possession of the same for thirty years and cultivated the same for ten or twelve consecutive years. [Signed] Joseph his x mark. Lacroix. Test: M. P. Leduc.” As stated in the bill of exceptions, the copies of these minutes “were admitted by the court as a part of said confirmations, but not as any evidence of the fact of possession by either of the confirmees prior to December 20, 1803, or of any other fact therein stated except as to location and boundaries.”

The plaintiff also read in evidence, against the objections of defendant, the report of Loughborough, the surveyor general, to the commissioner of the general land office, upon said survey No. 1664. This report is dated January 30, 1855, and in it the surveyor general sets forth various reasons for believing that the name Louis Lacroix had been used mistakenly for Joseph Lacroix. Testimony was adduced with a view to show that no person named Lacroix besides Joseph Lacroix resided in St. Louis prior to 1803. It appeared, however, that a person named Louis Lacroix had lived in St. Louis.

The plaintiff claims title under Joseph Lacroix; the defendant under Louis Lacroix. The court, at the instance of the plaintiff, instructed the jury as follows: “1. If the jury find from the evidence that the person who presented the claim for the tract of land in controversy to Theodore Hunt, recorder of land titles, on the 3d of March, 1825, was in fact Joseph Lacroix, and that the confirmation certificate was issued to Louis Lacroix upon proof of the possession of Joseph Lacroix, and that Joseph Lacroix was the person who possessed or cultivated the lot in the Grand Prairie common field adjoining P. Barribeau, as the same is described in the confirmation, then the jury will find for the plaintiff, if he has shown a derivative title to the right and title of Joseph Lacroix in the premises sued for. 2. If the jury find for the plaintiff, they will assess as damages the rents and profits of the land from the time of the commencement of this suit to this time, and also assess the value of monthly rents of the land.”

The defendant asked the court to instruct the jury as follows: “1. The claim to the right of the possession of the premises in question set up by the plaintiff is not supported by the proof of cultivation by Louis Lacroix, made before the recorder of land titles, and tabular lists of the same, which were given in evidence by plaintiff; and unless the jury find from the evidence that the plaintiff has proved clearly and beyond a doubt that Joseph Lacroix inhabited, cultivated or possessed the premises in question prior to the 20th of December, 1803, they must find for the defendant. 2. The plaintiff has not shown by any evidence that the title to the land in question as furnished by the proof of cultivation and possession in the name of Louis Lacroix before the United States recorder of land titles, and the certificate of confirmation issued by said recorder to Louis Lacroix, which were given in evidence, enured to the benefit of Joseph Lacroix or his legal representatives. 3. If the jury find from the evidence that the land in question is part of a common field lot in St. Louis Grand Prairie of one by forty arpens, and which lot was inhabited, cultivated or possessed by Louis Lacroix prior to the 20th December, 1803, then the title to the same was confirmed to Louis Lacroix by act of Congress of 13th June, 1812, which was given in evidence, and if so confirmed to Louis Lacroix then the plaintiff is not entitled to recover. 4. The confirmation certificate issued to Louis Lacroix by the United States recorder of land titles, which was given in evidence by defendant, is prima facie evidence of title in Louis Lacroix of a common field lot in the Grand Prairie of one by forty arpens, and is prima facie evidence of all the facts necessary to prove a confirmation by the act of Congress of 13th June, 1812, given in evidence by defendant; and the United States survey No. 1664, given in evidence by defendant, is prima facie evidence of the location, extent and boundaries of the same. 5. If the jury find from the evidence that the land in question is the same tract or lot of land or a part of the same that is mentioned and embraced in the confirmation certificate issued to Louis Lacroix by the United States recorder of land titles, which was given in evidence by defendant, then the plaintiff is not entitled to recover in this suit, unless they also find that the plaintiff has proved clearly and beyond doubt that it was Joseph Lacroix and not Louis Lacroix that made the application and proof of cultivation and possession of said land before the recorder of land titles, as shown by the copy of said proof given in evidence by plaintiff, and confirmation certificate given in evidence by the defendant. 6. The fact of Pierre Barribeau, in his description of boundaries, calling for Joseph Lacroix for his south boundary does not furnish any evidence of title in Joseph Lacroix to the lot joining said Barribeau on his south or to the land in question, nor in any way affect any title that may have existed in Louis Lacroix to the same lot at that time, or since, but is evidence only upon the question of location. 7. The several deeds which were given in evidence by plaintiff, purporting to show a conveyance of a common field lot of one by forty arpens in the Grand Prairie, from the heirs of Joseph Lacroix through the persons therein named as grantees down to plaintiff, are not to be considered by the jury as furnishing evidence of themselves of title in said Joseph Lacroix or his representatives to such common field lot, unless they also find that Joseph Lacroix was the person to whom said land was actually confirmed.” Of these instructions the court gave those numbered one and two, and refused the other.

The jury found for the plaintiff.

Krum & Harding and McLure, for appellant.

I. The admission of Hunt's minutes was erroneous. It was not offered to prove the location or boundaries of the land sued for, but to prove that Joseph Lacroix was entitled to the confirmation that was made in the name of Louis Lacroix. (17 Mo. 310; 21 Mo. 243; 27 Mo. 55.)

II. The report of the surveyor general was not competent evidence to prove any material fact in issue in the cause. (Blumenthal v. Roll, 24 Mo. 113.)

III. The first instruction given in evidence for the plaintiff is erroneous. There was no evidence upon which to base such an instruction. There was no evidence tending to prove that Joseph Lacroix presented the claim for the land in dispute before the recorder. The plaintiff does not seek to recover on the ground of possession and cultivation prior to December 20, 1803. There is no patent, confirmation or survey in favor of Joseph Lacroix. If plaintiff seeks the benefit of this confirmation by reason of any fraud, accident or...