TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Henry v. Atkison

A. Henry, in Error v. John Atkison, in Error

Henry v. Atkison, 50 Mo. 266 (1872)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of Missouri · State Highest Courts
Decided
July 15, 1872
Judges
Adams, Other
Citations
50 Mo. 266
Headnotes
1. County, commissioner of— Deed by — Construction of statute. — A deed made by a county seat commissioner need not recite the authority of the officer. If it appear on the face of the instrument that it was made by him as commissioner, the requirement of the statute (Wagn. Stat. 397, $14) is met. Such a conveyance can only be a quit-claim deed; and a covenant of warranty would not bind the county.
Summary
Error to Bates Circuit Court.

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

Opinion of the Court — Adams

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

Adams, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court.

This was ejectment for a lot in the toAvn of Butler, the county seat of Bates county. The plaintiff claimed title by virtue of a deed executed to him by the county seat commissioner of Bates county, Avhich was excluded by the court, and judgment given in favor of the defendant.

*267 David McGraughey was the commissioner, and there was no dispute that he had authority to make the deed. The only objection was that the deed did not recite the authority. The deed on its face appears to be made by him as commissioner, and that is all that the statute requires. (Wagn. Stat. 397, § 14.)

The deed operates as the execution of a statutory power, and can convey only such interest as the county had in the lots. Any warranty in the deed would not bind the county, as the commissioner had power only to convey the interest of the county and not to make warranties. I think the deed is a substantial compliance with the statute and ought not to have been rejected.

Let the judgment be reversed and the cause remanded.

The other judges concur.

How later courts describe this case

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

1889: 11903: 118892026peak 1889 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Simpson v. Stoddard County73 S.W. 700 (Mo. 1903)
  2. Pool v. Brown98 Mo. 675 (1889)

Most recent

  1. Simpson v. Stoddard County73 S.W. 700 (Mo. 1903)
  2. Pool v. Brown98 Mo. 675 (1889)

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