Jamison v. Fopiana
Supreme Court of Missouri
JLppeal from St. Louis Circuit Court. “ The deed of the corporation of St. Louis, under the corporate seal, implies the authority of the officer executing it.”
Read the full summary
JLppeal from St. Louis Circuit Court. “ The deed of the corporation of St. Louis, under the corporate seal, implies the authority of the officer executing it.” (1 Ky. 268 ; 15 Wend. 25 ; 6 S. & R, 12 ; 13 Halst. 183 ; 4 Yerg. 7; Swartz v. Page, 13 Mo. 63.) The plaintiff failed in his chain of title by omitting to read in evidence or offering in evidence the deed of Miss Lami to Michael S. Cerre, whereby it would be made to appear that he, Michael S. Cerre, was the legal representative of Miss Lami, and that the mayor had authority to make the deed in evidence to Mr. Cerre.
1Opinion of the CourtWagner, Judge
This was an action of ejectment to recover three acres of land situated in the county of St. Louis, in the St. Louis commons, and being the western part of what is known as the Lami tract. The petition contained a simple count in ejectment. The answer denied the allegations in the petition, and, in addition, set up the statute of limitations as a bar to plaintiff’s recovery. The plaintiff deduced title from the city of St. Louis, and on the trial read in evidence a deed from the city, executed by the mayor under the seal of said city, to Michael S. Cerre, purporting to convey the laird in…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Reilly v. ChouquetteSupreme Court of Missouri · 1853
- Swartz v. PageSupreme Court of Missouri · 1850
- Tigh v. ChouquetteSupreme Court of Missouri · 1855
3Cited by5 opinions
- City of Fort Wayne v. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Co.Indiana Supreme Court · 1892
- Simpson v. Stoddard CountySupreme Court of Missouri · 1903
- City of San DiegoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
- West v. BretelleSupreme Court of Missouri · 1893
- San Francisco & Fresno Land Co. v. HartungCalifornia Supreme Court · 1902