Legal Opinion

Primm v. Haren

Supreme Court of Missouri

Decided March 15, 1858PublishedCited by 14 opinions

Appeal from St. Louis Land Gowrt. This was an action to recover possession of part of a tract of six by forty arpens, alleged to have been confirmed to J. B. Gamache, sr., or his legal representatives, by act of Congress of June 13,1812. The land sought to be recovered lies within the United States survey of Carondelet common. Defendant claims title under the confirmation of the common of Carondelet.

Read the full summary

Appeal from St. Louis Land Gowrt. This was an action to recover possession of part of a tract of six by forty arpens, alleged to have been confirmed to J. B. Gamache, sr., or his legal representatives, by act of Congress of June 13,1812. The land sought to be recovered lies within the United States survey of Carondelet common. Defendant claims title under the confirmation of the common of Carondelet. The titles aro the same in general as in the case of Gamache v. Piquinot, 17 Mo. 315. The court, at the request of plaintiffs, gave tho following • instructions : “ 1. The jury are instructed…

1Opinion of the CourtScott, Judge

The statute of limitations is made the turning point of this cause as it is presented by the record. "We can not well see how Carondelet can claim commons under the statute oi limitations, especially on a possession from the 17th March, 1818. It has been thought for some time that the statute of limitations did not operate against the town until the time of her incorporation, which took place in August, 1832. If she could not sue for the want of an incorporation, it is not obvious how she could have been sued without one. It may be if one had gone into possession under her, he might have been…

2Cited by14 opinions

  1. Mayer v. BrensingerIllinois Supreme Court · 1899
  2. Kennedy v. PhillipsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1928
  3. Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. v. BrownIndiana Supreme Court · 1912
  4. Wilson v. Board of EducationSupreme Court of Missouri · 1876
  5. Chapman v. Kansas City, Clinton & Springfield Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1898

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API