Mitchell v. Parker
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from St. Louis Land Court. I. The court erred in finding from the evidence that certificate No. 119 was legally issued and legally entered. On the injured land only one certificate could lawfully issue, and that was No. 118, the first issued. There can be no doubt that all the confirmations were on the same concession, and that both certificates issued on the same injured land.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis Land Court. I. The court erred in finding from the evidence that certificate No. 119 was legally issued and legally entered. On the injured land only one certificate could lawfully issue, and that was No. 118, the first issued. There can be no doubt that all the confirmations were on the same concession, and that both certificates issued on the same injured land. The same petition, same concession, same Spanish survey, same quantity, same description and boundary — Joseph Hunot, sr., on one side — same notice of claim, and same dates, but acted on by the board on the…
1Opinion of the CourtScott, Judge
This is an action in the nature of an ejectment. The defendant relies on no title in himself, but attempts to defeat the plaintiff’s action by showing that there is no title in him. The plaintiff, in support of his title, produced a record from which these facts are gathered. On the 27th March, 1806, J. B. Barsaloux presented to the first board of the United States commissioners a claim for one hundred and fifty arpens of land. This claim is in these words: “ John Baptiste Barsa-loux claims one hundred and fifty arpens of land, situate in the district of New Madrid, by virtue of a grant from…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Ferguson v. Seawell's executorsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1822
3Cited by3 opinions
- Och v. Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1895
- Hancock v. BlackwellSupreme Court of Missouri · 1897
- Kearney v. VaughanSupreme Court of Missouri · 1872