Keeton v. Audsley
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Saline Circuit Court. Keeton, by his entry of the land, acquired no title to timber cut prior to the entry. The timber remained the property of the United States, and the injury, if any, done by Audsley, was to the United States, and not to Keeton. The cases of Turley v. Tucker, 6 Mo. Rep. 583, and Gale v. Davis, 7 Mo. Rep. are consistent with this posi- ’ tion.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Saline Circuit Court. Keeton, by his entry of the land, acquired no title to timber cut prior to the entry. The timber remained the property of the United States, and the injury, if any, done by Audsley, was to the United States, and not to Keeton. The cases of Turley v. Tucker, 6 Mo. Rep. 583, and Gale v. Davis, 7 Mo. Rep. are consistent with this posi- ’ tion. The plaintiff cannot recover any damages for a mere breach of his close, because he does not claim any in his petition, nor was there any evidence that his close was broken. relied upon Gale v. Davis, 7 Mo. Rep. 545.
1Opinion of the CourtScott, Judge
This was an action for wrongfully entering upon the plaintiff’s land, and for cutting timber and carrying it away. The answer consisted of a denial of the matters stated in the petition. The facts were, that Audsley, the defendant, had a set of house logs cut upon the public land, and afterwards Keeton, the plaintiff, entered the land, and Audsley, after Keeton’s entry, hauled the logs away. There was no evidence in the cause on which any instruction could be based, relative to the right of the plaintiff to any portion of the land by accretion.
The court gave the' following instruction, asked…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Mooers v. WaitNew York Supreme Court · 1829
3Cited by4 opinions
- Ecosystem Resources, L.C. v. Broadbent Land & Resources, LLCWyoming Supreme Court · 2012
- Teachout v. CloughMissouri Court of Appeals · 1910
- Richmond Land Co. v. WatsonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1908
- Jewett v. DringerSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1878