Conklin v. Hannibal & St. Joseph Railroad
Conklin v. Hannibal & St. Joseph Railroad Company
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Hough, J.
On the 30th day of July, 1870, the defendant, for and in consideration of the sum of $305.53, sold and conveyed in fee to the plaintiff, Mary Conklin, wife of Daniel Conklin, forty acres of land in Macon county. Defendant covenanted that it was seized of an indefeasible estate in fee simple in said land, and the present action was brought for an alleged breach of that covenant. The plaintiff recovered judgment for $375.73, and the defendant has appealed. It appears from the record that in March, 1873, the plaintiffs surrendered without suit, the possession • of said premises to one Austin, who claimed to own the same by purchase from Macon county. In order to show title in Macon county, testimony was offered to show that the land in question was swamp land, within the meaning of the act of Congress of September 28th, 1850, but there was no testimony tending to show that it had ever been selected as swamp land under the provisions of that act. The plaintiffs therefore failed to show that the person to whom they suiuendered possession, held the paramount title, and on the authority of Morgan v. The Han. & St. Jo. R. R. 63 Mo. 129 , their right to recover would be denied, if this were a suit upon the covenant of warranty. The present action, however, was for a breach of the covenant of seizin, and as the testimony was sufficient to show that the land in *535 question was excepted from the grant made to the defendant by the act of June 10, 1852, under which it claimed title, and there was consequently a breach of that covenant, the plaintiff was entitled to recover; but as the possession of the land passed, with the deed, to the plaintiffs, in the absence of testimony showing either actual eviction or ouster in pais, their recovery must be limited to nominal damages. Collier v. Gamble, 10 Mo. 466 ; Dickson v. Desire’s adm’r, 23 Mo. 151 ; Cockrell v. Proctor, et al. supra, p. 41. The judgment of the circuit court will therefore be reversed and the cause remanded.
The other judges concur, except Judge Henry, not sitting.
Reversed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 1 case
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
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.