TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Harrison v. Taylor

James Harrison v. Clay Taylor

Harrison v. Taylor, 33 Mo. 211 (1862)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Missouri · State Highest Courts
Decided
October 15, 1862
Judges
Bates, Other
Citations
33 Mo. 211
Cited by 4
Headnotes
Ejectment — Tenants in Common. — Where the defendant sued in ejectment by a tenant in common sets up an adverse possession, it is unnecessary for the plaintiff to show a demand for possession previous to the suit. Zands — Limitation.—See Tayon v. Ladew, supra; Page v. Scheibel, 11 Mo. 167.
Summary
Appeal from St. Louis Land Court. This was an ejectment for part of the same common field lot in controversy in the case of Page v. Scheibel, 11 Mo. 167. The plaintiff claimed title under Calvé. The defendant claimed title under a New Madrid location and patent to Genereux, and defended also under the statute of limitations. Against plaintiffs’ title they claimed that Calvó had abandoned the lot under the Spanish government. At the trial the questions as to the conflicting titles and limitations were similar to those decided in the case of Tayon v. Ladew. The evidence upon the question of abandonment by Calvé was the same as in the case of Page v. Scheibel, 11 Mo. 167.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Bates

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Bates, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court.

This case is very much like the case of Tayon v. Ladew, in which our opinion is given at this term, which covers nearly all the questions necessary to be decided in this case.

In that case the plaintiffs claimed solely a confirmation by the act of 1812, without survey. In this case the plaintiff claimed a confirmation by the act of 1812, and also a confirmation by the act of 1816 and survey thereunder.

It was urged by the appellant in this case that the defendants, or one of them, was tenant in common with the plaintiff, and therefore that the plaintiff could not sue without having made a previous demand for possession.

*212 The answer states that the defendants held the premises “ adversely against all persons.” Their adverse holding thus appearing, it was unnecessary for the plaintiff to show a demand of possession.

The other judges concurring,

judgment affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 4 cases

View all citing references →
1883–1884: 11885–1886: 11889–1890: 11897–1898: 118832026peak 1883 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Gilchrist v. Middleton12 S.E. 85 (N.C. 1890)
  2. Grant v. Paddock47 P. 712 (Or. 1897)
  3. La Riviere v. La Riviere77 Mo. 512 (1883)
  4. Falconer v. Roberts88 Mo. 574 (1886)

Most recent

  1. Grant v. Paddock47 P. 712 (Or. 1897)
  2. Gilchrist v. Middleton12 S.E. 85 (N.C. 1890)
  3. Falconer v. Roberts88 Mo. 574 (1886)
  4. La Riviere v. La Riviere77 Mo. 512 (1883)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list