Home/Missouri Court of Appeals/Clamorgan v. Hornsby

Clamorgan v. Hornsby

13 Mo. App. 550, 1883 Mo. App. LEXIS 152
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals
DecidedMay 1, 1883
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 13 Mo. App. 550 (Clamorgan v. Hornsby) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Clamorgan v. Hornsby, 13 Mo. App. 550, 1883 Mo. App. LEXIS 152 (Mo. Ct. App. 1883).

Opinion

Lewis, P. J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

This proceeding represents a consolidation of twenty-nine ejectment suits brought by the same plaintiffs against various defendants, to recover a part of United States Survey No. 728, situate near the northern extremity of the present city of St. Louis. The petitions in all these cases describe the land sued for as being “ all of that portion of the land embraced within United States Survey numbered seven hundred and twenty-eight, * * * lying and being west of the western boundary line of the land deeded to Pierre Chouteau by Jacques Clamorgan, by deed dated June 26, 1810, and bounded south by the southern line of said survey, west by the western line of said survey, and east by the western line of said deed.” A patent for United States Survey No. 728 was issued February 12, 1874, to Jacques Clamorgan or his legal representatives. The plaintiffs claim to be the legal representatives of Clamorgan, by devise and inheritance. The court, sitting as a jury, found for the defendants.

A number of questions are here discussed by counsel on both sides; but it seems to us that the description in the [551]*551petitions narrows down the whole controversy to the proper interpretation of the deed which it includes. If there is no land within the survey lying west of that conveyed in the deed from Clamorgan to Chouteau, —in other words, if the land conveyed by that deed extended to the western boundary of the survey, — there is no land in existence which the plaintiffs can recover under their petitions. When the plaintiffs closed their case in the circuit court, they had not introduced the Clamorgan deed in evidence. There was, therefore, at that point, no identification of any land upon which the court could render a judgment. It devolved upon the plaintiffs to show that there was some land, ih the defendant’s possession, lying between Chouteau’s acquisition from Clamorgan and the western boundary of the survey. This it was impossible to do, without exhibiting the deed, so as to show what part of the survey, if a part at all, it covered. The defendants, however, supplied the omission by putting the deed in evidence, against the plaintiffs’ objections, so that it is fairly before us.

The patent recites- the patent certificate, No. 291, from which it appears that in pursuance of the several acts of Congress respecting claims to lands, etc., Jacques Clamorgan has been confirmed in his claim to a tract of land containing four hundred and twenty and thirty-nine one-hundreths acres. It further recites a survey regularly made and certified under the confirmation, bearing date September 4, 1822, and copies the field notes of that survey for a description of the land to be granted in the patent. From these notes it distinctly appears that the land corners at the southwest with Joseph Hebert, that its southern boundary line coincides with Joseph Hebert’s northern boundary, its western boundary line with the eastern boundaries of H. St. Cyr and L. N. St. Cyr, and its northern boundary line with the southern boundary of H. St. Cyr.

The deed from Clamorgan to Chouteau, of June 26, 1810, describes the land conveyed as “a certain piece of land situated in the prairie of Malin Creek, in the district of St. [552]*552Louis-, which piece of land contains four hundred arpens in superficies, forming a part of a larger tract granted to me by the Spanish government, October 5, 1793, which land is bounded on the south side by the land of Joseph Hebert, on the north by me, the above said vendor, the front of which on the east is sixteen arpens running north and south, and in the rear also, in the same direction, north and south, twenty-four arpens, by a quantity of twenty arpens in depth from east to west, that is to say, from the river Gingras to the hills.”

The testimony of William H. Cozzens, an experienced surveyor, was to the effect that he had surveyed the land granted by the patent, and had also surveyed the Clamorgan-Chouteau tract according to the calls in the deed of June 26, 1810. Following these calls, a width of twenty arpens from the river Gingras westwardly would establish the southwest corner at a point in the south line of survey 728, distant about ten and thirty-two one-hundredths chains east-wardly from the southwest corner of that survey. The west line of the Clamorgan-Chouteau tract would not be parallel with the west line of survey 728, but would intersect and cross it at a point distant from the southwest corner, about two-thirds the length of the line. The lines thus run will enclose a triangle, whose base will be the line of ten and thirty-two one-hundredths chains connecting the two south west corners of the tracts, respectively, and whose sides will be sections of their respective western boundary lines. Within this triangle are situate the several lots of ground in controversy. Unless, therefore, this be the true method of locating the west line of the Clamorgan-Chouteau tract, the plaintiffs can show no right of recovery.

The testimony of Cozzens, and other proofs, tended further to show that the western terminus of the south line of the Clamorgan-Chouteau tract, thus located, falls short of reaching “the hills” by about the distance from that terminus to the southwest corner of survey 728. If, then,

[0]

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Black v. Pratt Coal & Coke Co.
85 Ala. 504 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1888)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
13 Mo. App. 550, 1883 Mo. App. LEXIS 152, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clamorgan-v-hornsby-moctapp-1883.