Tully v. Canfield
Supreme Court of Missouri
Jlppeal from Linn Common Pleas. I. The deeds were acknowledged according to the laws of this State, and the record copy was admissible in evidence under the general law. (Wagn. Stilt., 278. § 30, 1872.) IL Plaintiffs claimed under general warranty deed, and in such ca.-e record copies may be read as. the “warrantor is presumed to retain tile title papers anterior to his own for his own protection.”
Read the full summary
Jlppeal from Linn Common Pleas. I. The deeds were acknowledged according to the laws of this State, and the record copy was admissible in evidence under the general law. (Wagn. Stilt., 278. § 30, 1872.) IL Plaintiffs claimed under general warranty deed, and in such ca.-e record copies may be read as. the “warrantor is presumed to retain tile title papers anterior to his own for his own protection.” (Lord Buckhast vs. Fenner, 1 Coke, 1; Jackson vs. Woolsey, 11 Johns., 453 ; Eaton vs. Campbell, 7 Pick., 10; Barton vs. Murrain, 27 Mo., 235; Will. Real Est., 546.)' I. Copies of the record of the…
1Opinion of the CourtSherwood, Judge
Ejectment for recovery of certain land in military bounty land district.
The only question the case presents is the proper construction to be given to sections 35, 36 and 38 of chapter 35 D relation to Conveyances. (Wagn. Stat., 278, 279.)
*100The obvious and accomplished objects of the foregoing sections were, First, to waive, as to instruments conveying or affecting military bounty lands, any informality caused by non-compliance with our laws respecting acknowledgments, provided said instruments were acknowledged in accordance with the laws of the State where executed; second — to put the…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Barton v. MurrainSupreme Court of Missouri · 1858
- Crispen v. HannavanSupreme Court of Missouri · 1872
- Totten v. JamesSupreme Court of Missouri · 1874
3Cited by2 opinions
- Stout v. RigneyCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1901
- Ferguson v. BartholomewSupreme Court of Missouri · 1877