Howell v. Pitman
Supreme Court of Missouri
1. The only question for this court now to decide is,-whether the circuit court erred in excluding said survey,- and all evidence, written- and parol, in relation thereto! Plaintiff contends that the circuit court erred in making that decision; and that, if the survey was-returned, examined, approved and certified by the surveyor general,it was sufficient to make it competent testimony to go to-the jury.
Read the full summary
1. The only question for this court now to decide is,-whether the circuit court erred in excluding said survey,- and all evidence, written- and parol, in relation thereto! Plaintiff contends that the circuit court erred in making that decision; and that, if the survey was-returned, examined, approved and certified by the surveyor general,it was sufficient to make it competent testimony to go to-the jury. Copies of such plats and surveys are made legal evidence by Rev. Stat. of Mo. p. 254, sec. 6. The-other authorities cited by the counsel-for plaintiff in error are, act of Congress, 4th…
1Opinion of the CourtEdwards, Judge
Howel brought an action of ejectment against Pitman! for a tract of land in St. Charles county. Pitman pleaded, the general issue. On the trial, a witness on the part of the plaintiff proved that he had surveyed the land in dispute; in conformity to an Order in writing from the surveyor general at St. Louis; which authority he returned to that office with his survey, Defendant’s counsel moved the court to exclude from the jury dll evidence, parol and written, in relation to the survey, unless a copy of that order from the surveyor general should be produced; and this motion was sustained by…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- English v. MullanphySupreme Court of Missouri · 1827
- Johnson v. StraderSupreme Court of Missouri · 1834
3Cited by1 opinion
- Walter v. ScofieldSupreme Court of Missouri · 1902