Menkens v. Ovenhouse
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from St. Louis Land Court. 1. There was no sufficient adverse possession. There should be an actual, hostile, distinct, visible and notorious corporeal occupation of the land during the whole of the time the statute has to run.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis Land Court. 1. There was no sufficient adverse possession. There should be an actual, hostile, distinct, visible and notorious corporeal occupation of the land during the whole of the time the statute has to run. (5 Cow. 219 ; 2 Johns. 230; 2 N. & McC, 343 ; 1 Ríce, 10 ; 1 Mete. 528 ; 10 Johns. 477; 4 Mass. 416 ; 2 Aik. 364; 4 Bibb, 544 ; 1 Marsh. 59, 506 ; 5 Litt. 22 ; 6 S. & R. 21; 11 Gill & Jo. 371.) 2. The payment of taxes alone, though it may extend the limits of a possession, does not constitute it, and there must accompany it an actual occupancy of at least a part…
1Opinion of the CourtRyland, Judge
The only question in this case is,'will the finding of the facts by the court sustain the judgment rendered thereon ? There is no evidence preserved on the record, no motion to review the finding of the facts by the court, and nothing for this court to consider but the finding of the facts and the judgment thereon.
*72The facts found are as follows : “A tract of land, whereof the land in controversy is part, was conceded by the lieutenant governor Piernas to Clement Delor de Traget, in 1771, and was confirmed to his representatives (npt naming them) by the act of congress of 29th April, 1816.…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Lessee of Ewing v. BurnetSupreme Court of the United States · 1837
- Barclay v. Richard W. Howell's LesseeSupreme Court of the United States · 1832
- Proprietors of the Kennebeck Purchase v. SpringerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1808
- M'Call v. NeelySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1834
- Peter v. BeverlySupreme Court of the United States · 1836
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Musick v. BarneySupreme Court of Missouri · 1872