APPEAL from Lincoln Circuit Court.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE.

On the 5th of September, 1845, Johanna Maria Rutgers, Sarah Johanna Rutgers, Maria Jere-mina Provauschere, John, alias, Jan Kesselrus and Aruendina Wilhelmeni Kesselrus, his wife, declared in ejectment against Morgan Wright for a tract of land in the county of Lincoln, W. half section 15, township 48, range 1, west part survey 7056 arpents confirmed to Wm. Dunn or legal representatives.

April 27th, 1846, defendant appeared and plead not guilty (additional plea filed.)

28th April, 1846, cause tried by jury and verdict and judgment for the plaintiffs.

The plaintiff’s evidence on the trial was as follows :

1st. The plaintiffs are the heirs of Arend Rutgei-s.

2nd. They held all the title under the confirmation to Dunn or his legal representatives, of survey 3005, containing 6256 arpents — granted by Delassus, 18th of June, 1802, which grant with the surveys was filed with the recorder, April 22nd, 1808, confirmed by act of July 4th, 1836.

3rd. The premises in dispute were embraced within said confirmation.

4th. Defendant was in possession at commencement of this suit, receiving the monthly value of the premises $2 00.

Defendant’s evidence:

1st. That defendant had all the title to the premises in dispute created by New Madrid location, in favor of Robert Quimby, which was patented to Robert Quimby, 6th December, 1822.

2nd. Defendant offered to prove, that he had been in peaceable adverse possession since 1818. To which the court sustained the plaintiff’s objections and defendant excepted to the court’s decision. This was all the evidence. The court on plaintiffs motion instructed the jury that the plaintiff’s title was better than defendant’s.

The court further instructed the jury that if Dunn’s claim was filed with the recorder, April 22nd, 1808, and was confirmed by the act of July 1836, and the right to the claim had vested in the plaintiff’s before this suit, they should find for the plaintiff’s. To which defendant excepted.

Defendant’s motion for a new trial was overruled by the court, and exception taken.

On the question as to which is the better of these two titles, it is respectfully submitted, that the title under the patent is the better title. There is no particular charm in a grant made by act of Congress which would enable it to prevail were an older grant made by the proper ministerial officers, acting in the name, and by the authority of the same government.

…

Citation profile

How this case has been treated — in progress