Page v. Scheibel
Supreme Court of Missouri
ERROR to St. Louis Circuit Court. 1. The 9th instruction asserts that though Martin Coontz may have conveyed the land in New Madrid, in lieu of which the recorder’s certificate was issued to James Tanner, and though the plaintiff derived title regularly under Tanner, yet the legal title to the land located in the name of Coontz or his legal representatives, vested in Coontz and not in Tanner, or those claiming under him; and therefore that the plaintiff was not entitled to…
Read the full summary
ERROR to St. Louis Circuit Court. 1. The 9th instruction asserts that though Martin Coontz may have conveyed the land in New Madrid, in lieu of which the recorder’s certificate was issued to James Tanner, and though the plaintiff derived title regularly under Tanner, yet the legal title to the land located in the name of Coontz or his legal representatives, vested in Coontz and not in Tanner, or those claiming under him; and therefore that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover. This is clearly contrary to the decisions of this court in Kirk’s heirs vs. Greene’s heirs, 10 Mo. R., 252;…
1Opinion of the CourtNapton, J.
This was an action of ejectment, brought by Page against Scheibel, to recover a tract of land in St. Louis county. A verdict and judgment were given for the defendant.
The plaintiff’s title was derived from, a New Madrid location of 640 acres, under certificate no. 145, and is the same in its details, as set forth in the statement of the case of Page vs. Hill — determined at the present term. The location of McKnight and Brady was on such parts of fractional sections 10 and 15 as are not embraced by other private claims, and the residue to be taken from the east side of fractional section 9,…
2Cited by15 opinions
- Ferris v. CooverCalifornia Supreme Court · 1858
- Fine v. St. Louis Public SchoolsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1860
- Edgerly v. Farmers' InsuranceSupreme Court of Iowa · 1876
- Allen v. West Lumber Co.Texas Commission of Appeals · 1922
- W. M. Ritter Lumber Co. v. Montvale Lumber Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1915
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.