Williams v. Carpenter

• Citation: 35 Mo. 52
• Parties: HENRY W. WILLIAMS, Respondent, v. CHARLES J. CARPENTER, Appellant.
• Decision Date: 31 March 1864
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

35 Mo. 52

HENRY W. WILLIAMS, Respondent,

v.CHARLES J. CARPENTER, Appellant.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

March Term, 1864.

Appeal from St. Louis Land Court.

The plaintiff sued in ejectment to recover possession of a tract of one by forty arpens, alleging in his petition that it was the same tract which was proved before Recorder Hunt in the name of Louis Lacroix, meaning Joseph Lacroix. The plaintiff claimed title under Joseph Lacroix, and the defendant under a Louis Lacroix.

At the trial the plaintiff gave in evidence the confirmation to Louis Lacroix, in the usual tabular form, dated March 3, 1825, granted under the act of Congress of 26th May, 1824, on proof of inhabitation and cultivation in conformity with the provisions of the act of 13th June, 1812.

Plaintiff also gave in evidence a certificate of confirmation, No. 145, issued by the Recorder of Land Titles in the name of Louis Lacroix, and also several deeds and also oral proof tending to show title in him to the locus in quo derived from Joseph Lacroix.

Plaintiff then called Agustus H. Evans. In answer to a question by plaintiff, which was objected to by defendant as incompetent, this witness stated “that he was present at the office of the Recorder of Land Titles in 1825 or 1826, and found Lacroix and Baribeau there; whether they had just made proof of their claims, or were about to prove them, witness could not say, but from what took place witness' attention was called to the proving up of a claim to a lot on Grand Prairie; witness could not recollect who was the witness for Joseph Lacroix to prove up his lot in the Grand Prairie, but was under the impression that Baribeau did.”

Defendant duly objected to this testimony as incompetent, and excepted to the decision of the court in admitting it.

In answer to another question of the same import (also objected to), this witness said, “I am under the impression that Baribeau proved it up for him (Joseph Lacroix); I think Lacroix was witness for Baribeau, and that Baribeau was witness for Lacroix; witness did not know what Lacroix it was, or whether he heard the proofs given, or heard it read from the record.”

This evidence was duly objected to as incompetent and exception taken to its admission.

Plaintiff called several witnesses who had lived a great number of years in St. Louis, and among other matters they severally testified in substance that they knew Joseph Lacroix, but had never known Louis Lacroix, nor ever heard of him. The testimony of each of these witnesses the defendant objected to as incompetent, but the court admitted it and defendant duly excepted.

The defendant gave in evidence several deeds and also gave oral testimony tending to show the legal title in him to the locus in quo derived from Louis Lacroix.

Defendant also gave evidence tending to prove that Louis Lacroix was an inhabitant of St. Louis in Spanish times, and that he cultivated and claimed a lot in the Grand Prairie common field of St. Louis, at the place where the land in controversy is situated.

The court, at the instance of the plaintiff, gave the following instructions to the jury:

1. If the jury find from the evidence that Joseph Lacroix was the person who appeared before Hunt, the recorder, in 1825, and caused the proofs to be made in regard to the cultivation of the common field in the Grand Prairie of St. Louis, bounded north by Pierre Baribeau and south by Paul Le Grandeur, alias Guitard, and that the recorder did give to Joseph Lacroix the certificate of confirmation, but by a mere mistake wrote the name Louis instead of Joseph, then Joseph Lacroix or his representatives are entitled to the benefit of the certificate of confirmation read in evidence in this cause.

2. If the jury find from the evidence that Joseph Lacroix was the person who appeared before the recorder in 1825, as stated in the instruction No. 1 for plaintiff, and that he was the person to whom said certificate of confirmation was actually issued, then the plaintiff is entitled to recover, if he has shown a derivative title to the premises in question under Joseph Lacroix's legal representatives.

3. And if the jury find for the plaintiff, they will assess as damages the rents and profits of the twelve arpens of land sued for on the east end of said one by forty arpens, from the 2d day of December, 1856, to this date; and the jury will also assess the value of the monthly rents and profits of said land.

Defendant duly excepted to the giving of these instructions.

The plaintiff also asked the following instructions, which the court refused to give:

1. The act of Congress of the 3d of June, 1812, confirmed to the inhabitants of the village of St. Louis the rights, titles and claims of said inhabitants to their common field lots, which said lots had been inhabited, cultivated or possessed prior to the 20th day of December, A. D. 1803. It was therefore necessary that the person claiming a common field lot by virtue of this act should have been an inhabitant of St. Louis cultivating or possessing said lot prior to the 20th of December, 1803, and at the date of the passage of the act continuing to claim said lot by himself or his legal representatives. And the act of Congress of the 26th May, 1824, required the said inhabitants whose claims had thus been confirmed by said act of June 13, 1812, to appear before the Recorder of Land Titles and prove before said recorder the fact of such inhabitation, cultivation, or possession, and the boundaries and extent of their claim; and the said proof, when thus made, must have been made by a claimant, or his legal representatives, whose claim was confirmed by said act of Congress of June 13, 1812.

2. By the act of Congress of May 26, 1824, it was made the duty of the Recorder of Land Titles to issue to the persons making the proof of cultivation or possession before him a certificate of confirmation; and if the jury find that Joseph Lacroix was the person who made the proof before the recorder, it was the duty of said recorder to issue the certificate of confirmation to the claimant of the lot who made the proof; and in the absence of all evidence in regard to that subject, the presumption is that the said recorder issued said certificate to the claimant who made the proof before him.

The defendant asked and the court gave the following instructions:

1. The confirmation certificate No. 145, issued by the Recorder of Land Titles, read to the jury by the plaintiff, is prima facie evidence that the land therein described was confirmed by the United States to Louis Lacroix or his legal representatives; and if the land sued for in this action is a part of the land described in said certificate of confirmation, then the plaintiff cannot recover, and the jury should find for the defendant, unless they find that the said recorder did in point of fact issue said certificate to Joseph Lacroix, but by mistake inserted the name of Louis instead of Joseph.

2. If the confirmation certificate read in evidence was granted in the name of Louis Lacroix, it was not necessary to its validity that he should have been personally present before the Recorder of Land Titles at the time said certificate was granted, nor was it necessary that said Louis should have been present at the time proof of inhabitation or cultivation was made in his behalf before the recorder.

3. Unless the deeds read in evidence under which the plaintiff claimed title were made by the heirs or legal representatives of Joseph Lacroix, the plaintiff cannot recover, and in no event can he recover more of the premises in question than he has shown deeds for from the heirs or legal representatives of said Lacroix.

The defendant also asked the following instructions, which were refused:

1. The confirmation certificate No. 145, issued by the Recorder of Land Titles, read to the jury by the plaintiff, is prima facie evidence that the land therein described was confirmed by the United States to Louis Lacroix or his legal representatives; and if the land sued for in this action is a part of the land described in said certificate of confirmation, then the plaintiff cannot recover, and the jury should find for the defendant.

2. The certificate of confirmation No. 145, read in evidence, is prima facie evidence that the same was intended by the Recorder of Land Titles for the person therein named as the confirmee, and the burden in this case of proving to the contrary rests upon the plaintiff.

3. The plaintiff having given in evidence the confirmation certificate No. 145, in the name of Louis Lacroix, he (the plaintiff) cannot in this action invalidate this certificate, or show that the Recorder of Land Titles, when he made the said certificate, intended to make the same for and in the name of Joseph Lacroix.

4. Although the jury may believe from the evidence that the confirmation certificate No. 145, to Louis Lacroix, was made or granted by mistake on the part of the Recorder of Land Titles, yet said certificate, if genuine, is sufficient in law to transfer to said Louis Lacroix the land therein described, if the jury find from the evidence that there was a person by that name: and if the jury find that there was no person by the name of Louis Lacroix, then said certificate is wholly inoperative and void, and the title to the land therein described remains in the United States, and in such case the plaintiff cannot recover.

5. In making proof of inhabitation or cultivation before the Recorder of Land Titles, it was not necessary for the claimant himself to be present; he might act by agent or attorney; and although the jury should believe from the evidence that Joseph Lacroix was the person who actually attended to the business of making the necessary proof in regard to the tract in question before Recorder Hunt, this fact alone does not tend to show that he was the person to whom the confirmation was intended to be made.

6. There is no evidence in this case that Joseph Lacroix...