Home/Supreme Court of Missouri/Sweringen v. St. Louis

Sweringen v. St. Louis

52 S.W. 346, 151 Mo. 348, 1899 Mo. LEXIS 318
CourtSupreme Court of Missouri
DecidedJuly 3, 1899
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 52 S.W. 346 (Sweringen v. St. Louis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Sweringen v. St. Louis, 52 S.W. 346, 151 Mo. 348, 1899 Mo. LEXIS 318 (Mo. 1899).

Opinion

GANTT, P. J.

This is an action of ejectment for the following land in the city of St. Louis. Beginning at a point in the southern line of Buchanan street at the northeast corner of city block No. 2544, of said city; thence southwardly along the eastern line of said block to the southeast corner thereof; thence westwardly along the southern line of said block 150 feet to the southeast corner of city block No. 660 east of said city; thence southwardly to the northeast corner of city block No. 661 east of said city; thence southwardly along the eastern line of said last named block to the southeast corner of the same in the northern line of Branch street; thence eastwardly along the northern line of Branch street extended to the Mississippi river, to said river; thence northwardly along said river to the southern line of said Buchanan street to said river, and thence westwardly along the southern line of said Bnchanan street extended to said river, to the point of beginning.

Ouster was laid as of April 9th, 1891.

As a matter of fact, the land which plaintiff seeks to recover is a part of the North Wharf of the city of St. Louis, beginning sixty feet north of Dock street and extending ninety feet wide between parallel lines from the western line of the said wharf eastwardly to the Mississippi river. The plaintiff claims title to the above tract as an accretion to land patented by the United States to Louis Labeaume and his heirs in confirmation of a Spanish concession to William M. Christy and under partition proceedings of the estate of said Christy.

There are various defenses interposed by the city. The first is predicated upon the fact that inasmuch as the plaintiff has absolutely no sort of paper title to the specific land sued for but must recover, if at all, upon a showing that this land [355]*355is an accretion formed by tbe Mississippi river to her title acquired by mesne conveyance from Louis Labeaume, it is an indispensable prerequisite that she show that Labeaume himself was a riparian owner.

[353]*353

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

Related

State v. Johnson
179 S.E.2d 371 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1971)
Volkerding v. Brooks
359 S.W.2d 736 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1962)
Erickson v. Greub
287 S.W.2d 873 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1956)
City of Missoula v. Bakke
198 P.2d 769 (Montana Supreme Court, 1948)
American Steel & Wire Co. v. City of St. Louis
190 S.W.2d 919 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1945)
Tyler v. Gonzales
189 S.W.2d 519 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1945)
Hafner Manufacturing Co. v. City of St. Louis
172 S.W. 28 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1914)
Frank v. Goddin
91 S.W. 1057 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1906)
Widdecombe v. Chiles
61 L.R.A. 309 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1903)
Hafner v. City of St. Louis
61 S.W. 632 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1901)
Cantlin v. Holladay-Klotz Land & Lumber Co.
52 S.W. 247 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1899)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
52 S.W. 346, 151 Mo. 348, 1899 Mo. LEXIS 318, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sweringen-v-st-louis-mo-1899.