TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Gibson v. Chouteau

Charles Gibson v. Charles P. Chouteau

Gibson v. Chouteau, 50 Mo. 85 (1872)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of Missouri · State Highest Courts
Decided
March 15, 1872
Judges
Other, Wagner
Citations
50 Mo. 85
Headnotes
1. Ejectment — Patent — Statute of limitations.— In actions of ejectment the statute of limitations does not begin to run till the patent issues. (Gibson v. Chouteau, 13 Wall. 93.) 2. State Supreme Court, on case reversed from U. S. Supreme Court, may reopen record, how. — It seems that when a case is reversed in the Supreme Court of the United States on one issue, and remanded to the State court for further proceedings in accordance therewith, the latter court maj’- reopen the record for the correction of other errors appearing thereon, of which the State courts have sole jurisdiction.
Summary
Motion to Affirm Judgment of St. Louis Land Court The recitals on the face of the patent are conclusive against Gibson, who claims under it, that the interfering claims are valid titles. (Glamorgan v. Green, 32 Mo. 285; Carver v. Jackson, 4 Pet. 1, 83, 88 ; Van Rensselaer v. Kearney, 11 How. 297; Primm v. Lajoye, 3 Mo. 529 ; Barnett v. Devenbaugh, 3 Binn. 179 ; Penrose v. Griffith, 4 Binn. 237; Field v. La'ngsdorf, 43 M6. 3*2 ; 36 Mo. 440 ; Sprigg v. Bank of Mt. Pleasant, 12 Pet. 257; Ballance v. Forsythe, 13 How. JL8 ; Magwire v.-Tyler, 8 Wall. 650 ; Chapman v. Armisted, 4 Munf.-382 ; R. C. 1855, p. 695, § 33 ; Sess. Acts 1857, p. 34; Slevin v. Brown, 32 Mo. 176.)

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

Opinion of the Court — Wagner

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

Wagner, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court.

This case was in this court at its October term, 1866, and will be found reported in 39 Mo. 539 . We then decided the whole case in favor of the respondent, with a single exception, namely, the statute of limitations. Upon that question we ruled against him, and held that he was barred. On that single point he appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States, and that tribunal has reversed this court, and he now presents his motion asking that judgment be entered up in his favor.

There is obviously nothing more for this court to decide, or, for any court to retry, that is not res adjudicata. Upon every question of State jurisdiction we held for him, and the Supreme Court of the United States has decided the remaining point coming within Federal cognizance in his favor, and we therefore think he is entitled to his judgment. There is a remaining point, however, and that is this : his patent interferes with and covers certain portions of common-field lots, which we are satisfied, as now advised, constitute a superior title to his. A judgment here would be no bar to an action' of ejectment in these claims, and we will sustain the motion on condition-that the respondent enters in this court a remittitur for the above mentioned interferences.

The other judges concur.

How later courts describe this case

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

1879–1880: 11881–1882: 11883–1884: 21887–1888: 11919–1920: 11935–1936: 118792026peak 1883 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Chouteau v. Gibson76 Mo. 38 (1882)
  2. Keen v. Schnedler92 Mo. 516 (1887)
  3. Kinzell v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.190 P. 255 (Idaho 1920)
  4. Georgia Power Co. v. City of Decatur182 S.E. 32 (Ga. 1935)
  5. Buren v. Buren79 Mo. 538 (1883)
  6. Widdicombe v. Childers84 Mo. 382 (1884)

Most recent

  1. Georgia Power Co. v. City of Decatur182 S.E. 32 (Ga. 1935)
  2. Kinzell v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.190 P. 255 (Idaho 1920)
  3. Keen v. Schnedler92 Mo. 516 (1887)
  4. Widdicombe v. Childers84 Mo. 382 (1884)
  5. Buren v. Buren79 Mo. 538 (1883)
  6. Chouteau v. Gibson76 Mo. 38 (1882)

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