Harrison v. Taylor
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from St. Louis Land Court. This was an ejectment for part of the same common field lot in controversy in the case of Page v. Scheibel, 11 Mo. 167. The plaintiff claimed title under Calvé. The defendant claimed title under a New Madrid location and patent to Genereux, and defended also under the statute of limitations. Against plaintiffs’ title they claimed that Calvó had abandoned the lot under the Spanish government.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis Land Court. This was an ejectment for part of the same common field lot in controversy in the case of Page v. Scheibel, 11 Mo. 167. The plaintiff claimed title under Calvé. The defendant claimed title under a New Madrid location and patent to Genereux, and defended also under the statute of limitations. Against plaintiffs’ title they claimed that Calvó had abandoned the lot under the Spanish government. At the trial the questions as to the conflicting titles and limitations were similar to those decided in the case of Tayon v. Ladew. The evidence upon the question of…
1Opinion of the CourtBates, Judge
This case is very much like the case of Tayon v. Ladew, in which our opinion is given at this term, which covers nearly all the questions necessary to be decided in this case.
In that case the plaintiffs claimed solely a confirmation by the act of 1812, without survey. In this case the plaintiff claimed a confirmation by the act of 1812, and also a confirmation by the act of 1816 and survey thereunder.
It was urged by the appellant in this case that the defendants, or one of them, was tenant in common with the plaintiff, and therefore that the plaintiff could not sue without having made a…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Gilchrist v. . MiddletonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1890
- Grant v. PaddockOregon Supreme Court · 1897
- La Riviere v. La RiviereSupreme Court of Missouri · 1883
- Falconer v. RobertsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1886