Barry v. Otto
Supreme Court of Missouri
Jlppealfrom St. Louis Circuit Court. I. The court is bound to know judicially that the legal title to the land in question is in the United States and there remains until it is divested by patent or grant. (3 Washb. Real Prop., 168; Carman vs. Johnson, 20 Mo., 108; Gibson vs. Chouteau, 13 Wall., 93.) II.
Read the full summary
Jlppealfrom St. Louis Circuit Court. I. The court is bound to know judicially that the legal title to the land in question is in the United States and there remains until it is divested by patent or grant. (3 Washb. Real Prop., 168; Carman vs. Johnson, 20 Mo., 108; Gibson vs. Chouteau, 13 Wall., 93.) II. The rule of the common law that the defendant in an action of ejectment may show an outstanding title in a third person to defeat the suit of plaintiff, is not changed by the statute. (Gurno vs. Janis, 6 Mo., 330; Keene vs. Barnes, 29 Mo., 377; Border vs. Davis, 38 Mo., 107; Foster vs. Evans,…
1Opinion of the CourtAdams, Judge
This was an action of ejectment for a lot in the city of St. Louis. The plaintiff and defendants claimed to be owners respectively of two adjoining lots, and the contest was as to the boundary line between their lots. The ground in dispute was a strip of ten or eleven inches wide by the length of the lots one hundred and twenty-seven and a half feet. Both parties introduced deeds of conveyance for the purpose of showing the boundaries of their respective lots from the same original grantor. The plaintiff claimed title to the locus in quo by adverse possession for more than ten years before…
2Cited by10 opinions
- Ridgeway v. HollidaySupreme Court of Missouri · 1875
- Scannell v. American Soda Fountain Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1901
- Boe v. ArnoldOregon Supreme Court · 1909
- Norton v. ReedSupreme Court of Missouri · 1913
- Kansas City Suburban Belt Railroad v. NorcrossSupreme Court of Missouri · 1897
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.