Newman v. Studley
Supreme Court of Missouri
1. The copy of the deed read in evidence, was no evidence of defendants title, because there was no proof of the execution of the original — 2 Mo.
Read the full summary
1. The copy of the deed read in evidence, was no evidence of defendants title, because there was no proof of the execution of the original — 2 Mo. Dec. 148; Stro-ther v. Christy, 2 Peter’s Condensed Rep. 28. 2. Because there was no proof of its loss — 2 Peter’s C.R. 28; ib. 173. 3. Because said deed was never recorded with the recorder of St. Louis county. 4. Because, admitting said deed to have been duly executed and its loss established, the sale to Penrose being a public sale, was not made in pui suance of law, and passed no title. Under the third point we referred to acts of Mo. of 1804…
1Opinion of the CourtMcGirk, Judge
On the 13th February, 1836, Newman brought an action of ejectment against Studiey for a lot of ground in the city of St. Louis, 120 feet by 150. There was a verdict and judgment lor the defendant, Studiey, to reverse which the appellant brings the cause here.
By the bill of exceptions, it appears that one Vero-, ñique Guitard, in the year 1803, having been in possession of the lot about six years before, sold the same to one Louis Cailloux, but continued to occupy the same till 1808, when she died. It was proved that the mother *294of Cailloux lived on said lot until the summer before her death,…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Henderson v. HendersonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1874
- Nelson v. FlemingIndiana Supreme Court · 1877
- Gage v. EddyIllinois Supreme Court · 1899
- Dingee v. KearneyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1876