Pipkin v. Allen
Supreme Court of Missouri
Error to Jefferson Circuit Court. This was an action for partition of a tract of five hundred and forty arpens of land. The facts are briefly as follows: The plaintiffs Pipkin and Beal claim to be tenants in common with the defendants of said tract. Plaintiffs claim two hundred acres each, leaving forty acres for defendants. David Boyle claimed a settlement and improvement right containing one thousand two hundred and twenty arpens.
Read the full summary
Error to Jefferson Circuit Court. This was an action for partition of a tract of five hundred and forty arpens of land. The facts are briefly as follows: The plaintiffs Pipkin and Beal claim to be tenants in common with the defendants of said tract. Plaintiffs claim two hundred acres each, leaving forty acres for defendants. David Boyle claimed a settlement and improvement right containing one thousand two hundred and twenty arpens. Sis hundred and forty acres of this tract were afterwards confirmed by the United States. On the 23d of November, 1813, Boyle executed a deed of conveyance,…
1Opinion of the Court
Scott,. Judge,
delivered the opinion of the court.
The question whether the plaintiffs and .defendants were tenants in common of the land in controversy was not raised on the trial in the court below ; it is not, therefore, regularly here. But we will consider whether there is any foundation for that objection. Boyle was possessed of a large tract of land. He made a deed to Russell, in which it is recited that the.said Boyle. claimed a settlement and improvement right of twelve hundred and twenty arpens of land situate on Sandy Creek, “ five hundred arpens of which have been selected by the…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Spurlock v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1887
- Cullen v. SpriggCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
- Dangerfield v. CaldwellCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1907