text:
Railroad Companies v. Gaines/Opinion of the Court

ERROR to the Supreme Court of the State of Tennessee.

This was a suit in equity commenced in the Chancery Court of Davidson County, Tennessee, by three railroad companies, the Memphis and Charleston Railroad Company, the Mobile and Ohio Railroad Company, and the Knoxville and Charleston Railroad Company, plaintiffs in error, to restrain the defendants, who are officers of the State, from assessing and collecting taxes upon the property of the several corporations, under the provisions of 'An Act declaring the mode and manner of valuing the property of a railroad company for taxation,' passed March 20, 1875 (Acts 1875, p. 3100), as amended by 'An Act to amend 'An Act entitled an act. . .' passed March 20, 1875, and to adjust the rights of the State and railroads in Tennessee under the decision of the Supreme Court, holding that the eleventh section of said act is unconstitutional,' passed in March, 1877. Acts 1877, p. 33.

The section of the act of 1875, important to the consideration of this case, is,--

'SECT. 11. That each and every railroad company which will accept as a special amendment to its charter for a period of ten years from the first day of January, 1875, and that will pay annually to the treasurer of the State one and one-half per cent on the gross receipts from all sources of such company, shall be exempt from the provisions of the foregoing sections of this act, and the payment of said one and one-half per cent upon all gross earnings of such road shall be in full of all taxation. . . . Such railroads as do not accept the provisions of this section shall be taxed as provided for in the foregoing sections of this act: Provided, that the charters of all railroad companies accepting the provisions of this section shall be hereby so amended that after the expiration of said ten years no exemptions of any property of said railroad company shall exist, but be placed upon the same footing as the property of other corporations or individuals. The charters of all railroad companies accepting the provisions of this section are hereby so amended that, after the lapse of the ten years aforesaid, every provision contained in the provisions of the charter of said companies exempting their property from taxation is hereby declared null and void, in as full and ample a manner as if the same was especially set forth in their respective charters.'

Art. 2, sect. 28, of the Constitution of Tennessee, which took effect in 1870, is as follows:--

'All property, real, personal, or mixed, shall be taxed; but the legislature may except such as may be held by the State, by counties, cities, or towns, and used exclusively for public or corporation purposes, and such as may be held and used for purposes purely religious, charitable, scientific, literary, or educational; and shall except $1,000 worth of personal property in the hands of each taxpayer, and the direct products of the soil in the hands of the producer and his immediate vendee. All property shall be taxed according to its value, that value to be ascertained in such manner as the legislature shall direct, so that taxes shall be equal and uniform throughout the State. No one species of property from which a tax may be collected shall be taxed higher than any other species of property of the same value. But the legislature shall have power to tax merchants, pedlers, and privileges in such manner as they may from time to time direct. . . .'

'SECT. 29. The General Assembly shall have power to authorize the several counties and incorporated towns in this State to impose taxes for county and corporation purposes respectively, in such manner as shall be prescribed by law; and all property shall be taxed according to its value upon the principles established in regard to State taxation.'

Art. 11, sect. 8, is as follows:--

'The legislature shall have no power to suspend any general law for the benefit of any particular individual, nor to pass any law for the benefit of individuals inconsistent with the general laws of the land; nor to pass any law granting to any individual or individuals, rights, privileges, immunities, or exemptions other than such as may be by the same law extended to any member of the community who may be able to bring himself within the provisions of such law. No corporation shall be created, or its powers increased or diminished, by special laws; but the General Assembly shall provide by general laws for the organization of all corporations hereafter created, which laws may, at any time, be altered or repealed; and no such alteration or repeal shall interfere with or divest rights which have become vested.'

On the 3d of February, 1877, the Supreme Court of Tennessee decided, in the case of Ellis v. The Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co., not yet reported in the current series of reports, that the eleventh section of the Railroad Taxation Act of 1875 was unconstitutional and void, except perhaps as to corporations exempt from taxation by the terms of their charters and accepting the section, because it did not impose a tax upon the property of railroad companies equal and uniform with that imposed upon the property of individuals.

After this decision the amendment of 1877 was passed, by which sect. 11 of the act of 1875 was repealed, and the railroad tax assessors were required to assess all railroads in the State for the years 1877 and 1878, under the first ten sections of the act of 1875; and where any railroads had not been assessed under such sections 'by reason of having accepted and complied with the provisions of the eleventh section of said act, or for any other cause,' they were to be assessed for the years 1875 and 1876, as well as 1877 and 1878. Sect. 8. All railroads which had accepted and complied with the provisions of the eleventh section of the act of 1875 were allowed a credit for the sums paid under that section on the amounts assessed for the years 1875, 1876, 1877, and 1878, and if the sums paid exceeded the assessments for those years the excess was to be refunded with interest. Sect. 9.

Sect. 38 of the charter of the Memphis and Charleston Railroad Company is as follows:--

'The capital stock of said company shall be for ever exempt from taxation, and the road, with all its fixtures and appurtenances, including workshops, machinery, and vehicles of transportation, shall be exempt from taxation for the period of twenty years from the completion of the road, and no longer.'

This company completed its road March 28, 1857. It also accepted the provisions of the eleventh section of the act of 1875, and paid the treasurer of State, Jan. 10, 1876, the one and one-half per cent of its gross earnings for the year 1875, amounting to $5,691, and, Jan. 10, 1877, $5,581, the percentage for 1876.

After the passage of the act of 1877, the State officers proceeded to make a valuation of the property of the company, and were taking the necessary steps to provide for the levy and collection of taxes. This suit was commenced to restrain such action, and the grounds for relief as alleged were,--

1. That the exemption of the capital stock of the company was an exemption of all the property of the company which had been procured with the capital.

2. That even if this were not so, the property of the company was exempt under its charter until March 28, 1877.

3. That by its acceptance of the eleventh section of the act of 1875 as an amendment to its charter, the company was exempt from any other taxation than that prescribed by that section, from January, 1875, until January, 1885.

The Supreme Court of the State decided, upon appeal, in respect to this company, that the acceptance of sect. 11 of the act of 1875 did not relieve the company from taxation under the first ten sections of the act of 1875, as amended in 1877, because that section was unconstitutional and void; that both the capital stock and the property of the company were, by the charter, exempt from all taxation until March 28, 1877; that after that date the property of the company was taxable under the act of 1875, as amended; and that, in settlement of the taxes to be levied for the years 1877 and 1878, the company was entitled to an allowance for the sums paid in 1876 and 1877, under that section.

Sect. 11 of the charter of the Mobile and Ohio Railroad Company provides as follows:--

'That the capital stock of said company shall be for ever exempt from taxation, and the road, with all its fixtures and appurtenances, including workshops, warehouses, and vehicles of transportation, shall be exempt from taxation for the period of twenty-five years from the completion of the road, and no tax shall ever be laid on said road or fixtures which will reduce dividends below eight per cent.'The road of this company was not completed until April 22, 1861, and the court below decided that both its capital stock and its tangible property were exempt from taxation until April 22, 1886, and as that relieved the company from taxation under the act of 1875, as amended, until after the year 1886, and the defendants in the suit were only proceeding to make an assessment for the years 1875, 1876, 1877, and 1878, an injunction was granted restraining the assessments until 1886, and leaving all questions after that time open.

The Knoxville and Charleston Railroad Company was incorporated Feb. 18, 1858. Sect. 58 of its charter is as follows: -

'The said company is hereby invested, for the purpose of making and using said road, with all the powers, rights, and privileges, and subject to all the disabilities and restrictions, that have been conferred and imposed upon the Nashville and Chattanooga Railroad Company in its original charter.'

The charter of the Nashville and Chattanooga Railroad Company contained all the usual and ordinary provisions found in railroad charters, authorizing the construction and use of railroads, and also contained an exemption from taxation like that in sect. 38 of the charter of the Memphis and Charleston Railroad Company. The Knoxville and Charleston Company claimed exemption from taxation under the amended law of 1875, on account of the exemption clause in the charter of the Nashville and Chattanooga Company; but the court below and Chattanooga Company was not one of the 'rights and privileges' granted to the Knoxville and Charleston Company.

To reverse the judgment of the Supreme Court of Tennessee, the companies sued out this writ, and assign for error that the Supreme Court of Tennessee erred,--

1. In adjudging that the eleventh section of the act of March 20, 1875, the provisions of which had been accepted, and by its terms had become a part of the charter of the Memphis and Charleston Railroad, was unconstitutional and void, as being violative of the rule of equality and uniformity of taxation prescribed and required by par. 28, art. 2, of the Constitution of 1870. It furthermore erred in holding that the repealing act of March 20, 1877, was constitutional and valid, and not violative of the chartered rights of these several companies.

2. In decreeing that the roads of the companies, with their fixtures and appurtenances, including shops, warehouses, and vehicles of transportation, whether built and purchased by the capital stock or not, were, under said act of 1877, liable to taxation after the expiration of twenty years, and twenty-five years from the completion of the respective roads.

3. In decreeing that the Knoxville and Charleston Railroad Company was liable to taxation under the acts of 1875 and 1877, and was not entitled to any exemption.

4. In not decreeing that the Mobile and Ohio Railroad Company should never be subjected to any taxation which would reduce its dividends below eight per cent.

Mr. W. Y. C. Humes for the plaintiff in error.

According to the settled judicial construction as well as the popular import of 'capital stock,' the term, where it occurs in the charters of these companies, must be held to signify the property purchased therewith and represented thereby. Such stock exists only nominally. The property it represents is the tangible rality. Burrough, Taxation, 142. If the charters were silent on the subject, and the general laws of the State controlled, a tax could not be assessed upon the stock and upon such property, whether the latter consisted of real estate, rolling-stock, the road-bed, or the fixtures therewith connected, as double taxation would be thereby imposed. It therefore necessarily follows that the perpetual exemption of the stock from taxation extends to such property. Gordon v. Baltimore, 5 Gill (Md.) 236; Baltimore v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co., 6 id. 294; State v. Cumberland & Pennsylvania Railroad, 40 Md. 51; Bedford v. Mayor of Nashville, 7 Heisk (Tenn.) 413; Iron City Bank v. Pittsburg, 37 Pa. St. 340; Connersville v. Bank of Indiana, 16 Ind. 105; Sebring v. City of Charleston, 5 Rich. (S.C..) Eq. 561; State v. Hood, 15 Rich. (S.C..) 178; Ordinary of Bibb County v. Central Railroad et al., 40 Ga. 646; Douglass v. State, &c., 34 N. J. L. 485; State, &c. v. Haight, id. 128; Richmond v. Richmond & Danville Railroad Co., 21 Gratt. (Va.) 604; Union Bank v. State, 9 Yerg. (Tenn.) 489; New Haven v. City Bank, 31 Conn. 108; Hannibal & St. Joseph Railroad Co. v. Shacklett, 30 Mo. 550; Wilmington Railroad v. Reid, 13 Wall. 264.

To give full effect to the entire charter, the specifically enumerated property which is exempt but for a limited period must be confined to such as was purchased or constructed with money, not constituting a part of the fund, subscribed by the corporators, but borrowed pursuant to the power which the charter conferred upon the companies. Otherwise, we must ignore the cardinal rule of construction, which requires that the different provisions of a statute should, if possible, be reconciled, so as to make the whole consistent and harmonious. The court below rendered nugatory and unmeaning the positive and unequivocal provision in regard to the capital stock, by holding that the property which it represents was rightfully subject to taxation after the expiration of that period.

The capital stock of the Memphis and Charleston Railroad Company and of the Mobile and Ohio Railroad Company is $10,633,325. The bonded debt, secured by mortgages, which was incurred in procuring the means to complete the construction of their roads and to purchase other property appurtenant thereto, is $16,295,677.05. By giving to each clause its full meaning, the works and property the respective companies to the latter amount would be taxable after that period; but so much of them as was paid for out of the capital stock would be perpetually exempt. Any other interpretation practically nullifies the first clause of the section, by depriving the capital stock of the immunity thereby conferred.

The Mobile and Ohio Railroad Company has also a further provision, relieving it from any taxation which 'would reduce dividends below eight per cent.' It has not for years declared dividends, and its condition will not justify it in doing so. The State claims the right, nevertheless, to subject the property to taxation. The cases in this court are conclusive against the right. Raleigh & Gaston Railroad Co. v. Reid, 13 Wall. 269; Pacific Railroad Co. v. Maguire, 20 id. 36.

The act of 1877 is a palpable violation of the contract contained in these charters, and no question is made by the defendants as to the power of the legislature to grant them under the Constitution of 1834.

It remains to consider the effect of the eleventh section of the act of March 20, 1875. The Memphis and Charleston Railroad Company, by accepting it, entered with the State into a contract, which is binding, unless it infringes some constitutional limitation upon the legislative power.

It is submitted—

1. That the charter of the company, with all the exemptions thereby conferred, was in full force when the Constitution of 1870 took effect.

2. By the section, the State purchased from the company its surrender of the exemptions, and thus secured an immediate annual revenue of one and one-half per cent upon its gross earnings, by stipulating that that percentage should be the measure of taxation for the ensuing ten years.

3. An adequate consideration having been thus paid, the case falls within the rule announced in State Bank of Ohio v. Knoop, 16 How. 169.

4. The constitutional provision respecting equality and uniformity of taxation does not apply to property wholly exempt from taxation, as this confessedly was, then and for years afterward. Even if no such exemption existed, the legislature could, under the existing Constitution, make a valid contract with the company for a fixed percentage on its gross earnings, in commutation for all taxes on its property for a specific period. Burrough, Taxation, 137; Illinois Central Railroad Co. v. McLean County, 17 Ill. 291; Hansacker v. Wright, 30 id. 148; State Bank v. People, 5 id. 303; People v. Berger, 62 id. 452; Supervisors v. Campbell, 42 id. 490; Louisiana State Lottery v. City of New Orleans, 24 La. Ann. 86; Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co. v. Tennessee, 8 Heisk. (Tenn.) 798.

5. The Supreme Court declared the section to be unconstitutional, after the company had in good faith accepted its terms, and paid for two years the stipulated consideration. The company claims that its acceptance created a contract, the obligation of which was impaired by subsequent legislation. A Federal question thus arises; and, in determining the points which it involves, this court is not, in regard to any of them, bound by the decision of the State court.

If, however, the section is held to be not authorized by the Constitution of 1870, the question as to the exemption under the original charters will remain.

The Knoxville and Charleston Railroad Company had, for the purpose of making and using her road, all the rights and privileges granted to the Nashville and Chattanooga Railroad Company by its original charter, which provided for an exemption of its capital stock for ever, and of its road and property for twenty years from the completion of the road. The road is not yet completed. Humphrey v. Pegues (16 Wall. 244) is almost identical with this case. It was there held that the grant of the rights and privileges to one company which were possessed by another carried with it the exemption from taxation which the latter enjoyed. So in Morgan v. Louisiana (93 U.S. 217), Mr. Justice Field says, 'Immunity of particular property from taxation is a privilege which may sometimes be transferred under that designation, as held in Humphrey v. Pegues, 16 Wall. 244. All that we now decide is, that such immunity is not itself a franchise of a railroad corporation, which passes as such, without other description, to a purchaser of its property.' p. 224. The only question then under consideration was, whether by a sale of the property and franchises of a railroad company under a decree of foreclosure, or under an execution sued out upon a money judgment rendered against it, an immunity from taxation conferred by the charter would accompany the property when transferred to the purchaser. The court decided that it would not, as it was a 'personal privilege of the company, and not transferable.' The soundness of the rule in Humphrey v. Pegues, as to what passes when the 'rights and privileges' which one company possesses are granted to another by a legislative enactment, was not doubted, nor has it been in any subsequent case.

Lexicographers define 'privilege' to be an exemption or immunity from some general burden; a peculiar advantage or benefit. The right and privilege to 'make and use' a railroad free from taxation, vested in the Nashville and Chattanooga Company, were granted to the Knoxville and Charleston Company.

Mr. J. B. Heiskell, contra.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE, after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court.

The claims of the several corporations will be considered separately, and in the order they are presented by the record.

I. THE MEMPHIS AND CHARLESTON RAILROAD COMPANY.

1. As to the extent of the exemption contained in the original charter.

Under this branch of the case the company claims that the exemption of the capital stock from taxation is equivalent to an exemption of the property purchased with or represented by the capital, and there are undoubtedly many cases to be found in this and other courts where it has been held that an exemption of the capital stock of a corporation from taxation was equivalent to an exemption of the property into which the capital had been converted. But in all these cases we think it will be found that the question turned upon the effect to be given the term 'capital,' or 'capital stock,' as used in the particular charter under consideration, and that when the property has been exempted by reason of the exemption of the capital, it has been because, taking the whole charter together, it was apparent that the legislature so intended. Thus the capital stock of a bank usually consists of money paid in to be used in banking, and an exemption of such capital stock from taxation must almost necessarily mean an exemption of the securities into which the money has been converted in the regular course of a banking business. And in general, an exemption of capital stock, without more, may, with great propriety, be considered, under ordinary circumstances, as exempting that which, in the legitimate operations of the corporation, comes to represent the capital.

But in this case, while the capital stock is for ever exempt, the 'road, with all its fixtures and appurtenances, including workshops, warehouses, and vehicles of transportation,' is exempt for only twenty years after the completion of the road. Clearly, under such circumstances, it could not have been understood that the enumerated property was to represent the capital for the purposes of taxation. Exemptions are never to be presumed. On the contrary, the presumptions are always against them. The exemption of the property for twenty years only is equivalent to an express power to tax after that time.

It is said, however, that both provisions of the statute can stand,-that which exempts the capital and that which taxes the tangible property,-if the part of the property which represents the capital is exempted, and that which represents the bonded debt is taxed; but we certainly have no clear manifestation of any such intention by the legislature. It is as distinctly stated that the road and all its fixtures, &c., are to be taxed as that the capital is to be exempt. While the company had power to borrow money on mortgage, it is very clear from the provisions of the charter it was expected the road might be completed with capital alone. Sect. 17, in which the power to mortgage is given, is as follows: 'The said company may at any time increase its capital stock to a sum sufficient to complete the road and stock it with every thing necessary to give it full operation and effect, either by opening books for new stock, or by selling such new stock, or by borrowing money on the credit of the company and on mortgage of its charter and works; and the manner in which the same shall be done, in either case, shall be prescribed by the stockholders at a general meeting. . . .' Under these circumstances, it cannot for a moment be doubted that if the legislature had supposed a different rule of taxation was to be applied if the road was built with borrowed money, from what should be if it was built from stock, some mention would have been made of it, and some means provided for determining what was exempt as representing stock, and what taxable as representing debt. Then again, suppose the debt paid off, either by the issue of new stock or the earnings of the road, would the property then be exempt as capital, or taxable because originally built with borrowed money?

Without pursuing this subject further, it is sufficient to say that we are clearly of the opinion that the road, with all its fixtures, &c., was taxable under the original charter after March 28, 1877, and that, whatever else was exempted as capital stock, this was not.

2. As to the effect of the acceptance of the eleventh section of the act of 1875, and the payment of taxes thereunder for the years 1875 and 1876.

The claim on the part of the company is, that by the acceptance of this section as an amendment to its charter, a valid contract was entered into between the State and the corporation, regulating the taxation of the company until the year 1885. It is said that the release by the company of the perpetual exemption of its capital stock, and of the exemption of its property until 1877, which were granted by the original charter, was a sufficient consideration for an agreement, on the part of the State, not to tax the company otherwise than according to the accepted eleventh section for ten years, and that a law which provides for taxation in a different manner impairs the obligation of that contract.

The decision of the Supreme Court of the State declaring this section to be invalid, so far as it relates to companies not claiming to be exempt from taxation under their charters, because it does not conform to the constitutional requirement of uniformity, is binding upon us as a construction of a State statute by the highest court of the State. While we are not bound by the decision in the present case, that the section is also invalid as to this company after the expiration of the time to which the exemption of its property was limited by its charter (Jefferson Branch Bank v. Skelly, 1 Black, 436; Bridge Proprietors v. Hoboken Company, 1 Wall. 116), the decision ought not to be overruled, unless it is clearly wrong. The delicate power which we have, under the Constitution of the United States, over the judgments of the State courts, ought always to be used with the greatest caution. There should be no reversal of such judgments, unless the error is manifest.

The Constitution of Tennessee adopted in 1870 requires that all property shall be taxed. After that Constitution went into effect, no valid contract could be made with a corporation for an exemption from taxation. So the courts of Tennessee have held, and in so doing have established a rule of decision for us. The property of this company was only exempt by its charter until March 28, 1877. The Constitution did not and could not interfere with this exemption so long as it lasted. This the Supreme Court of the State decided. To that extent the claim of the company was sustained.

If nothing had been done until the charter exemption expired, it is clear that, under the construction which the courts of the State have given the Constitution, no contract for the taxation of the company according to the provisions of the eleventh section of the act of 1875 could have been sustained. The only question, therefore, which remains, is, whether in 1875 the legislature could contract for the surrender of the remaining charter exemptions by binding the State not to tax the company for ten years in any other manner than that provided for in sect. 11.

The Constitution has subjected all property in the State to the burden of uniform taxation according to its value. So the courts of the State have decided. The legislature has no power to contract for relief from this burden. It could not do it for a money consideration, and if not for that, clearly not for any other. This is one of the disabilities under which the people of the State have placed their government. But for it taxes might have been commuted or they might have been withheld.

There is no doubt of the power of the legislature to contract with the company for a surrender of its charter exemptions in a way that did not involve a release from the constitutional mode of taxation after the charter exemption had expired. Such a release is, however, as we think, prohibited by the Constitution, as construed by the highest judicial authority in the State.

This disposes of the case so far as the Memphis and Charleston company is concerned. It is not contended that the act of 1875, as amended in 1877, transcends the power of taxation allowed by the charter after the exemption of the road and its appurtenances has expired, unless they are protected by the exemption of the capital stock. The Supreme Court of the State enjoined all taxation prior to March 28, 1877, and decreed that the money paid under the provisions of the eleventh section of the act of 1875 should be allowed as a credit upon the taxes of 1877 and 1878, and the excess, if any, refunded with interest. This, as we think, is all the company can require.

II. THE MOBILE AND OHIO RAILROAD COMPANY.

As to this company, the court decided that it was exempt from taxation under its charter until April 22, 1886, and enjoined the assessment and collection of taxes under the laws of 1875 and 1877 until that date. The further provision of the charter in respect to taxation so as to reduce dividends below eight per cent was not passed upon below, and was not involved in the decision as made. For this reason it cannot be considered by us.

III. THE KNOXVILLE AND CHARLESTON RAILROAD COMPANY.

The court below decided that this company did not by its charter become entitled to the privilege of exemption from taxation, which was granted to the Nashville and Chattanooga Company. If this be so, then the judgment was clearly right, and no other question need be considered.

The Knoxville and Charleston Company, for the purpose of making and using its road, was invested with all the powers, rights, and privileges of the Nashville and Chattanooga Company.

In Humphrey v. Pegues (16 Wall. 244), we held that the grant to one company of 'all the powers, rights, and privileges' of another, carried with it an exemption from taxation; but in Morgan v. Louisiana (93 U.S. 217), that such an exemption did not pass by sale of the franchises of a railroad company. In the last case, Mr. Justice Field, speaking for the court, said, 'The franchises of a railroad corporation are rights or privileges which are essential to the operations of the corporation, and without which its road and works would be of little value; such as the franchise to run cars, to take tolls, to appropriate earth and gravel for the bed of its road, or water for its engines, and the like. They are positive rights and privileges, without the possession of which the road of the company could not be successfully worked. Immunity from taxation is not one of them.'

This seems to us conclusive of the present case. The grant here was not of all the rights and privileges of the Nashville and Chattanooga Company, but of such as were necessary for the purpose of making and using the road, or, in other words, the franchises of the company which do not include immunity from taxation.

On the whole, we find no error in the record.

Judgment affirmed.


text: Talk:Railroad Companies v. Gaines/Opinion of the Court

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Palmer v. Low

Page 2 ERROR to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of California.

This was an action of ejectment, commenced April 30, 1872, by Daniel Palmer, the plaintiff in error, against Joseph W. Low, S. O. Houghton, and others, to recover possession of a portion of a one hundred vara lot No. 39, part of the pueblo lands of San Francisco, lying east of Larkin Street and northeast of Johnston Street. The city of San Francisco was first incorporated by the State of California, April 15, 1850, with certain defined boundaries. Acts of 1850, p. 223. It was the successor of the Mexican pueblo of Yerba Buena, or San Francisco. The original charter was repealed, and a new one granted, April 15, 1851. Acts of 1851, p. 357. The premises in controversy are within the boundaries of the city, as defined in this last act of incorporation, and constitute part of the lands claimed from the United States by the city, on account of its succession to the property and rights of the pueblo.

On the 20th of June, 1855, the city council of San Francisco passed an ordinance, known as the Van Ness ordinance, the sections of which material to the present controversy are as follows:--

'SECT. 2. The city of San Francisco hereby relinquishes and grants all the right and claim of the city to the lands within the corporate limits to the parties in actual possession thereof, by themselves or tenants, on or before the first day of January, A.D. 1855, and to their heirs and assigns for ever, excepting the property known as the slip property, and bounded on the north by Clay Street, on the west by Davis Street, on the south by Sacramento Street, and on the east by the water-line front; and excepting also any piece or parcel of land situated south, east, or north of the water-lot front of the city of San Francisco, as established by an act of the legislature of March 26, A.D. 1851: Provided, such possession has been continued up to the time of the introduction of this ordinance in the common council, or, if interrupted by an intruder or trespasser, has been or may be recovered by legal process; and it is hereby declared to be the true intent and meaning of this ordinance, that when any of the said lands have been occupied and possessed under any by virtue of a lease or demise, they shall be deemed to have been in the possession of the landlord or lessor under whom they were so occupied or possessed: Provided, that all persons who hold title to lands within said limits by virtue of any grant made by any ayuntamiento, town council, alcalde, or justice of the peace of the former pueblo of San Francisco, before the seventh day of July, 1846, or grants to lots of land lying east of Larkin Street and northeast of Johnston Street, made by any ayuntamiento, town council, or alcalde of said pueblo, since that date and before the incorporation of the city of San Francisco by the State of California; and which grant, or the material portion thereof, was registered, or recorded, in a proper book of record deposited in the office or custody or control of the recorder of the county of San Francisco, on or before the third day of April, A.D. 1850; or by virtue of any conveyance duly made by the commissioners of the funded debt of the city of San Francisco, and recorded on or before the first day of January, 1855, shall, for all the purposes contemplated by this ordinance, be deemed to be the possessors of the land so granted, although the said lands may be in the actual occupancy of persons holding the same adverse to the said grantees.

'SECT. 3. The patent issued or any grant made by the United States to the city shall inure to the several use, benefit, and behoof of the said possessors, their heirs and assigns, mentioned in the preceding section, as fully and effectually, to all intents and purposes, as if it were issued or made directly to them individually and by name.'

'SECT. 10. Application shall be made to the legislature to confirm and ratify this ordinance, and to Congress to relinquish all the right and title of the United States to the said lands, for the uses and purposes hereinbefore specified.

'SECT. 11. Nothing contained in this ordinance shall be construed to prevent the city from continuing to prosecute to a final determination her claim now pending before the United States land commission for pueblo lands, for the several use, benefit, and behoof of the said possessors mentioned in sect. 2, as to the lands by them so possessed, and for the proper use, benefit, and behoof of the corporation as to all other lands not hereinbefore released and confirmed to the said possessors.'

On the 11th of March, 1858, the legislature of the State of California passed 'An Act concerning the city of San Francisco, and to ratify and confirm certain ordinances of the common council of said city,' whereby this ordinance was in all respects ratified and confirmed. Sect. 2 of that act is as follows:--

'SECT. 2. That the grant or relinquishment of title made by the said city in favor of the several possessors by sects. 2 and 3 of the ordinance first above recited shall take effect as fully and completely, for the purpose of transferring the city's interest, and for all other purposes whatsoever, as if deeds of release and quitclaim had been duly executed and delivered to and in favor of them individually and by name; and no further conveyance or other act shall be necessary to invest the said possessors with all the interest, title, rights, benefits, and advantages which the said order and ordinances intend or purport to transfer or convey, according to the true intent and meaning thereof: Provided, that nothing in this act shall be so construed as to release the city of San Francisco, or city and county of San Francisco, from the payment of any claim or claims due or to become due this State against said city, or city and county, nor to effect or release to said city and county and title this State has or may have to any lands in said city and county of San Francisco.' Cal. Acts 1858, p. 52.

Afterwards, on the 1st of July, 1864, Congress passed 'An Act to expedite the settlement of the titles to lands in the State of California' (13 Stat. 332), sect. 5 of which is as follows:--

'SECT. 5. And be it further enacted, that all the right and title of the United States to the lands within the corporate limits of the city of San Francisco, as defined in the act incorporating said city, passed by the legislature of the State of California on the 15th of April, 1851, are hereby relinquished and granted to the said city and its successors, for the uses and purposes specified in the ordinances of said city ratified by an act of the legislature of the said State, approved on the 11th of March, 1855, entitled 'An Act concerning the city of San Francisco, and to ratify and confirm certain ordinances of the common council of said city,' there being excepted from this relinquishment and grant all sites or other parcels of lands which have been or now are occupied by the United States for military, naval, or other public uses, or such other sites or parcels as may hereafter be designated by the President of the United States within one year after the rendition to the General Land-Office by the surveyor-general of an approved plat of the exterior limits of San Francisco, as recognized in this section in connection with the lines of the public surveys: And provided, that the relinquishment and grant by this act shall in no manner interfere with or prejudice any bona fide claims of others, whether asserted adversely under rights derived from Spain, Mexico, or the laws of the United States, nor preclude a judicial examination and adjustment thereof.'

Both parties claim title under this ordinance and this legislation of the State and of Congress. A jury was waived on the trial below, and the court made and filed its finding of facts, from which it appears,--

1. That the grantors of the plaintiff entered into the possession of the premises in controversy, without title, about the year 1851 or 1852, and they and the plaintiff continued in the exclusive and adverse possession thereof down to the 8th of May, 1867, when the grantor of the defendant, S. O. Houghton, was placed in possession thereof by the sheriff of the city and county of San Francisco, under legal process issued in the case of Donner v. Palmer et al., to which suit neither the plaintiff nor any of his grantors deriving title from any party to the suit after the commencement thereof was a party.

2. On the 19th of July, 1847, George Hyde was the duly qualified and acting alcalde of the pueblo of San Francisco, and, as such alcalde, on the day last mentioned granted the premises in controversy to George Donner, by a grant thereof duly made recorded, and delivered by the alcalde; and the material portion of the grant was registered and recorded in a proper book of records, deposited in the office and in the custody and control of the recorder of the county of San Francisco, before the third day of April, 1850, and which book remained in the office and in the custody and control of the recorder until and on the third day of April, 1850, and has continued so to remain from that date.

3. That the defendant, S. O. Houghton, has, through mesne conveyances, acquired all the right, title, and interest of Donner in the premises, and that the defendants other than Houghton were, at the time the action was commenced, in possession as tenants under him.

4. At the time of the alleged grant to him, Donner was an infant of about ten years of age.

To prove the grant to Donner, the defendants offered in evidence an entry on 'Book A' of original grants, from the custody of the county recorder of the city and county of San Francisco, which is as follows:--

'LOT No. 39.

'Whereas George Donner has presented a petition soliciting for a grant of a title to a lot of ground as therein described, therefore I, the undersigned alcalde, do hereby give, grant, and convey unto the said George Donner, his heirs and assigns for ever, lot number thirty-nine (39), one hundred varas square, in the vicinity of the town of San Francisco, subject to all the rules and regulations governing in such cases.

'In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand as alcalde, this nineteenth day of July, A.D. 1847.

'GEORGE HYDE, 1st Alcalde.'

In connection with this offer, it was satisfactorily shown that 'Book A' was part of the archives of the office of the city and county of San Francisco, and it was admitted that the book was the original 'Book A' of alcalde grants in the custody of the city and county recorder, and known in the office as one of the books turned over to the county recorder's office in pursuance of the directions of the statutes of California, as one of the books of the former alcalde's office. It was satisfactorily proved that the signature of George Hyde to the alcalde entry of grant, or memorandum of grant, is in his handwriting, and his genuine signature, and that at the date of the entry he was the acting alcalde of San Francisco.

To the introduction of this entry in 'Book A' plaintiff's counsel objected, 'on the ground that it was incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, also on the ground that it is not primary evidence, or the best evidence, of a grant having been made to George Donner; that it is but secondary evidence, for the introduction of which no foundation had been laid; that there has been no proof of the loss or destruction of the original instrument, of which the said entry is a mere memorandum; that the entry in 'Book A' of original grants is a mere memorandum made by the alcalde; that the grant should have been made and signed by both parties, the grantor and grantee, and should have been attested by parties as witnesses of the fact; that the whole proceeding should have been set out on that book; that if it be a mere memorandum-book, it was indicative merely that there was some other instrument which had to be executed and delivered, and which is primary evidence in the case.'

These objections were overruled by the court, and an exception was then and there taken by the plaintiff.

Sect. 6 of an act of the legislature of California, 'defining the time for commencing civil actions,' passed April 22, 1850, is as follows:--

'SECT. 6. No action for the recovery of real property, or for the recovery of the possession thereof, shall be maintained, unless it appear that the plaintiff, his ancestor, predecessor, or grantor, was seised or possessed of the premises in question, within five years before the commencement of such action.' Acts of 1850, 344, sect. 6.

On the 11th of April, 1855, this section was amended by adding the following proviso:--

'Provided, however, that an action may be maintained by a party claiming such real estate, or the possession thereof, under title derived from the Spanish or Mexican governments, or the authorities thereof, if such action be commenced within five years from the time of the final confirmation of such title by the government of the United States, or its legally constituted authorities.' Acts 1855, 109, sect. 1.

On the 18th of April, 1863, this proviso was repealed, and the following enacted as a substitute:--

'SECT. 6. . . . And provided further, that any person claiming real property, or the possession thereof, or any right or interest therein, under title derived from the Spanish or Mexican governments, or the authorities thereof, which shall not have been finally confirmed by the government of the United States, or its legally constituted authorities, more than five years before the passage of this act, may have five years after the passage of this act in which to commence his action for the recovery of such real property, or the possession thereof, or any right or interest therein, or for rents or profits out of the same, or to make his defence to an action founded upon the title thereto. . ..

'SECT. 7. Final confirmation, within the meaning of this act, shall be deemed to be the patent issued by the government of the United States, or the final determination of the official survey under the provisions of the act of Congress, entitled 'An Act to amend an act entitled an act to define, &c., approved June 14, 1860." Cal. Acts 1863, 327.

Upon this state of facts the court below found as conclusions of law,--

'1. That defendant, S. O. Houghton, by virtue of said grant to said Donner, the said ordinance of the city of San Francisco, and the said acts of the legislature of California and of Congress, and the said mesne conveyances from said Donner to him, is the owner of, and has the legal title to, said demanded premises, and that the defendants are lawfully and rightfully in the possession thereof.

'2. That the Statutes of Limitations have not run in favor of the plaintiff, by reason of his own and his grantor's possession, from 1851 or 1852 to May 8, 1867, and that such possession gives him no title as against defendants.'

Judgment having been rendered in favor of the defendants in accordance with this finding, the plaintiff below sued out this writ of error, and assigns, in substance, for error the ruling of the court admitting 'Book A' as primary evidence to prove the grant to Donner, and the judgment for the defendants upon the facts as found.

Mr. Walter H. Smith and Mr. James K. Redington for the plaintiff in error.

1. Both parties claim under the Van Ness ordinance of June 20, 1855, the California act of March 11, 1858, and the act of Congress of July 1, 1864, confirming the title of San Francisco to certain lands.

As the plaintiff had actual, adverse, and exclusive possession of the demanded premises from 1851 to 1867, the enacting clause of that ordinance relinquished and granted to him the claim and right of the city to them. He therefore made out a clear prima facie title to recover.

2. The defendant cannot defeat that prima facie title, unless he produces first a grant of the premises, and, secondly, a record, showing that the 'grant, or a material portion of it, was registered.' These two substantive and independent facts must be established by legal evidence, to bring his case within the proviso to that ordinance.

The grant must, of course, be in such form as would possess intrinsic validity and transfer the title, if the alcalde had been vested with power to make it, and the grantee must have been competent to take.

The 'Plan of Pitic,' founded upon a royal ordinance, was not pursued in later years by the Mexican alcaldes in San Francisco, but was partially superseded by a custom which prevailed in July, 1846, when Upper California was conquered by the military forces of the United States. Dwinelle, Col. Hist. of San Francisco, 111. By that custom the only document containing the 'entire proceedings' was 'signed and attested in due form by the proper officer,' and delivered to the grantee; whilst the record-book contained a mere condensed copy or summary statement, often not signed at all, and it omitted the condition that the grantee should build a house on the land within a year, and conform to the police regulations. Id. 162-165. The grant was not produced nor its absence accounted for; and the pretended grantee, under whom the defendant claims, was then a child ten years old, and consequently incapable of performing the required condition.

'Book A' was inadmissible to prove an original grant. It could only be allowed upon the footing of mere secondary evidence, after the necessary preliminary proof had been made. It is not like a common-law record of proceedings in court, for that is itself an original, and supposes no better evidence in existence; whereas a record or registry of a deed or other instrument is only a copy, and presupposes an original. 2 Phill. Evid. 490; Brooks v. Marbury, 11 Wheat. 79; Rice v. Cunningham, 29 Cal. 492.

During the time which elapsed between the conquest of California and the establishment of her State government, an American officer, who acted as alcalde and granted pueblo lands, was bound to conform to pre-existing laws and customs until they were superseded by the conqueror. They made the delivery of the grant an essential prerequisite to the investiture of title, and in that respect conformed to the common-law doctrine applicable to the forms of conveyance prevailing in the United States, which were after the conquest introduced in California.

The record is not primary evidence of the execution and delivery of the alleged grant, and if it were, the grant as it there appears-containing no condition whatever-passed no right to the land.

3. Plaintiff's possession for the period prescribed by the Statute of Limitations vested in him a title which he could affirmatively assert against any adverse right or claim. Shelly v. Guy, 11 Wheat. 370; Pendleton v. Alexander, 8 Cranch, 469; Leffingwell v. Warren, 2 Black, 605; Bradstreet v. Huntington, 5 Pet. 402.

This proposition has been repeatedly affirmed by the Supreme Court of California in the construction of the statutes of that State. Grattan v. Wiggins, 23 Cal. 36; Le Roi v. Rodgers, 30 id. 234; Arrington v. Liscom, 34 id. 370, 371; Cannon v. Stockman, 36 id. 540; San Francisco v. Fulde, 37 id. 352.

4. The Statute of Limitations, set up by the defendants, was not a bar to this suit. Richardson v. Williamson, 24 Cal. 296; Maris v. De Celis, 51 id. 60; Arrington v. Liscom, supra.

Mr. S. O. Houghton, contra.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE, after stating the facts, delivered the opinion of the court.

title: Palmer v. Low


text: Talk:Palmer v. Low

title: Talk:Palmer v. Low


text:
Palmer v. Low/Opinion of the Court

The questions presented for decision in this case may be stated as follows:--

1. Was the entry in original 'Book A' of alcalde grants admissible as primary evidence to prove a grant to Donner?

2. Did the record show a grant sufficient in form?

3. Was the grant void because made to an infant?

4. Was the action barred by the Statute of Limitations?

These questions will be considered in their order.

1. As to the admissibility of the evidence.

The point of the inquiry is whether the record of alcalde grants of the pueblo lands of San Francisco, kept by the alcalde in accordance with the requirements of Mexican laws before the incorporation of the city of San Francisco by the State of California, in the custody of the city and county recorder, and known as one of the books of the former alcalde's office turned over to the county recorder's office, pursuant to the statutes of California, can be used as primary evidence of the recorded grants, or only as secondary evidence, after sufficiently accounting for the absence of the original certificate of grant issued to the grantee.

The rank in the scale of evidence which the Mexican archives occupy has been oftentimes the subject of consideration in the courts of California. As early as 1859, in the case of Gregory v. McPherson (13 Cal. 562), the question arose in reference to the admissibility of an expediente filed in the archives of the Mexican government, to prove a grant under the colonization laws, a copy of which grant, signed by the governor and countersigned by the secretary of state, was annexed to and formed a part of the expediente. The expediente itself consisted of the petition, plat, reference, report, act of concession, approval, grant, &c. It was rejected in the court below on the ground that it was secondary evidence only, and the absence of the copy of the grant which had been issued and delivered to the grantee had not been satisfactorily accounted for; but the Supreme Court said (p. 572): 'We are at a loss to know upon what grounds such a document can be denied the weight of original evidence. It was made, and signed, and authenticated as a record by public officers in the discharge of public duties. The papers were retained in the custody of the appropriate public officer for the purposes of proof, and the highest and most authentic proof, of their own action. The documents receive the stamp, and the most satisfactory stamp, of official authenticity. The signatures are made on this as on the papers sent out by the department. We cannot see why such papers should be called copies, or why, in the scale of proofs, they should stand in any subordinate relation to the paper handed to the grantee. If not counterparts, or duplicates, it would seem that the original paper is the record retained by the department as part of its public records. . . . We cannot presume that any governmental system of granting land could be so loose as that no records were preserved by the granting power. And it follows, we apprehend, as a universal rule, that wherever the acts of public officers are authenticated by their records, these records are evidence, in all courts of justice, of those acts. If by law, or usage having the force of law, a California grant was matter of record, then it would seem to follow that the record is proof of the grant, especially where, as in this case, the record is itself an exemplification of the grant, and contemporaneously signed by the same officers issuing the grant.'

Following this, in 1864, was the case of Downer v. Smith (24 Cal. 114), where the question arose upon the admissibility of an entry of a grant of land in the pueblo of San Jos e made in the book of alcalde grants; and although it was held that a statute of the State applicable to the county in which the lands were located made the entry admissible, it was said (p. 122), 'We think the court was warranted in finding that the book was one of original entries, and therefore entitled to be admitted as evidence upon that ground.' In Rice v. Cunningham (29 id. 492), decided in 1866, it best suited the purposes of one of the parties to use the same 'Book A' which is now under consideration, as secondary evidence to prove an alleged lost grant, and thus avoid the effect of an apparent cancellation of the grant which appeared upon the face of the record; but the court said (p. 497), 'The argument of counsel for the appellant, in support of their exception, is grounded upon a false assumption. They lower 'Book A' to the level of a chance copy-book, and strip it of all its character and dignity as a public record of the transactions of a government official vested with the exercise of most important functions, and then seek to use it on a question not then before the court.'

But in Donner v. Palmer (31 id. 500), decided in 1867, the precise question we are now considering was presented in reference to the identical grant under which the defendants in error claim, and it was held, after full argument, and with due regard to both the written and unwritten law of Mexico, including the 'Plan of Pitic,' so often alluded to in the argument here, that the entry was to be received as primary evidence. In the opinion, after copying the seventeenth section of the 'Plan of Pitic,' the court proceeds as follows (p. 508): 'In view of this language, there can be no doubt as to the mode in which grants of town lots were to be made. The entire proceedings were to be first entered in the official book required to be kept for that purpose, signed and attested in due form by the proper officer. A copy or summary statement of the proceedings as contained in the official book, also duly signed and attested by the proper officer, was then to be given to the grantee as evidence of his title; and in the event of its loss, the officer in whose official custody the book might be at the time was authorized and required to give him another 'like copy' of the original proceedings. The record so kept became an official and public record of the transactions of the alcaldes in the matter of granting town lots; and, as such, primary evidence of the acts they recited, under any system of law with which we are acquainted. Entries in such a book, if made in conformity with the regulations of the 14th of November, 1789, became, under the Mexican law, what is denominated an authentic instrument; that is to say, an instrument which proves itself, and, under the common law, an official record. Under both systems such entries have always been esteemed the highest and most satisfactory evidence of the facts which they recite, because they are made by the direction of the law, and are of public concern, and because they are made under the sanction of an oath, or, at least, of official duty, and made at or about the time the acts which they recite transpired. They are retained in the custody of the functionary or department by which they are required to be kept, and are so retained for the express purpose of making them permanent and primary evidence of the transactions of the government. 1 Greenl. Evid., sect. 488 et seq.'

The result thus reached has never been disturbed, and it is clear that a rule of property has been established by the courts of the State, binding as well upon the courts of the United States as upon those of the State. While the precise question presented to us was only decided in Donner v. Palmer, all the other cases point directly to the conclusion there reached, and it needed only the occasion to make the formal declaration. Certainly, if the Mexican archives possess the character which the courts have given them, there can be no doubt of the rank they take as evidence, under our system of jurisprudence. Hedrick v. Hughes, 15 Wall. 123. We see no error in the admission of the testimony.

2. As to the form of the grant.

There can arise here no question as to the payment of municipal fees or the delivery of the grant; for the bill of exceptions shows that the court below found as facts upon the evidence contained in the record of the grant and other evidence submitted, that the municipal fees were paid, and that the grant was actually delivered. Neither does any question arise as to the power of an American alcalde to make the grant; for the ordinance under which both parties claim, in terms confers the title upon grantees holding by such grants.

The only question then is as to the form of the instrument appearing in the record. It is certain that it does not meet all the requirements contained in the 'Plan of Pitic;' but the counsel for the plaintiff in error, in their argument here, say it is 'beyond the reach of contradiction, and matter of history, that the 'Plan of Pitic' was not pursued by Mexican alcaldes in San Francisco. Grants were made in a very different manner, and quite repugnant to its requirements. A long-established custom pursued by these alcaldes, under Mexican rule, modified and superseded the 'Plan of Pitic." What these modifications were we have not been informed. No authorities are cited upon the subject except those which go to show that after the conquest the American alcaldes usually followed the American system of conveyancing and registration. Donner v. Palmer, supra; Montgomery v. Bevans, 1 Sawyer, 653. We are then left to inquire whether the language of the grant is sufficient to pass the title, if there was no statute or custom prescribing the form in which such conveyances should be made. The government of the United States had not undertaken to regulate this subject, and the Mexican law, whatever it may have been, whether enacted by statute or established by custom, was in force; for the rule is well settled that the laws of a conquered territory, which regulate private rights, continue in force after the conquest until they are changed by the act of the conqueror. American Insurance Co. et al. v. Canter, 1 Pet. 511.

The language of this grant is: 'I, the undersigned alcalde, do hereby give, grant, and convey unto George Donner, his heirs and assigns for ever,' &c. These are the operative words of a present grant in fee-simple, and, being found in an official public record, will be presumed, in the absence of any thing to the contrary, to be sufficient to accomplish the purpose the parties had in view. While the alcalde was not the sovereign, he was the officer designated by law to make distribution of this kind of property among those to whom, under the Mexican law, it belonged; and the official record of his official acts, which the law requires him to keep, carries with it the presumption that his acts were in form such as was necessary to give full effect to what he was attempting to do.

This same question was presented to the Supreme Court of California in Donner v. Palmer (supra), and the same conclusion reached. As the point decided is one which relates to the effect to be given the statute of the State accepting and confirming the Van Ness ordinance, if not in fact the construction of a State statute absolutely binding upon us, it ought not to be disregarded except for imperative reasons.

3. As to the infancy of Donner.

We are not advised that the Mexican law prohibited such a grant to an infant. The distribution was to be made to 'settlers,' and was evidently left largely to the 'wise judgment' of the 'commissioner in charge.' If he erred in his judgment, it might be cause for setting aside the grant in some appropriate direct proceeding for that purpose; but so long as the grant remained uncancelled and duly recorded, it would certainly be a grant within the letter of the Van Ness ordinance, and it was so decided by the Supreme Court of California in Donner v. Palmer, supra. While infants cannot make grants, they may accept them. A grant to an infant is voidable, not void. The grant in this case has never been avoided, but, on the contrary, affirmed, and that, too, long before the Van Ness ordinance was confirmed by Congress. The title of Donner, therefore, from whom these defendants claim, was superior to that of the plaintiff under the ordinance.

4. As to the Statute of Limitations.

The nature of the title of San Francisco to her pueblo lands has often been the subject of consideration in this court, and was carefully stated by Mr. Justice Field in Townsend v. Greeley, 5 Wall. 326, and Grisar v. McDowell, 6 id. 363. At the time of the conquest, the pueblo, of which the city of San Francisco became the successor, did not have an indefeasible estate in the unconveyed portion of these lands, but only a limited right of disposition and use, subject in all particulars to the control of the government of the country. 'It was a right which the government might refuse to recognize at all, or might recognize in a qualified form.' 6 Wall. 373. Upon the conquest, the United States succeeded to the rights and authority of the Mexican government, subject only to their obligations under the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. As before that time the fee had not passed out of the government of Mexico, it was transferred to the United States by the conquest and the treaty which followed. Before, therefore, the estate of the pueblo could become absolute and indefeasible, some action was required on the part of the United States. It is conceded that this action was not taken until the act of July 1, 1864. Down to that time the city held under its original imperfect Mexican title only. Afterwards it was possessed of the fee 'for the uses and purposes specified' in the Van Ness ordinance.

In Henshaw et al. v. Bissell (18 Wall. 255), we held in effect that the State Statute of Limitations did not begin to run against the title thus perfected until July 1, 1864; and this decision was followed by the Supreme Court of California in Gardiner v. Miller, 47 Cal. 576. After the act of Congress no survey or patent was necessary for the consummation of the title. Ryan et al. v. Carter et al., 93 U.S. 78; Morrow v. Whitney, 95 id. 551. But independently of this, and looking only to the statutes of the State, it is clear that, after 1855 until the act of 1863, there was no statute of limitations in California affecting titles derived from the Spanish or the Mexican government before their final consummation by the government of the United States. The act of 1863 gave a right of action upon such titles for five years after the date of its passage; and within the five years, to wit, May 8, 1867, Donner, under whom the defendants claim, was put in actual possession of the premises, and he and they have continued in possession claiming title ever since. The statute runs only so long as the adverse possession continues. When the possession is ended the operation of the statute ceases, except in respect to titles previously acquired under it; for in California it is held that adverse possession for the requisite length of time transfers a title to the possessor, which may be asserted affirmatively against an otherwise valid record title. Arrington v. Liscom, 34 Cal. 366.

It follows, then, that Palmer acquired no title by his possession from 1851 to 1867, as against the Donner title, if that title was derived 'from the Spanish or Mexican government, or the authorities thereof;' and it seems to us clear that it was. It was so expressly decided by Mr. Justice Field in Montgomery v. Bevans (supra); and the cases of Townsend v. Greeley (supra), Grisar v. McDowell (supra), and Merryman v. Bourne et al. (9 Wall. 592), evidently proceeded upon that assumption. Donner claimed under the city of San Francisco, and the city under its equitable title derived from the Mexican government, finally ratified and confirmed by the United States. Whatever rights the city had under the Mexican title it held for the use and benefit of the inhabitants; and the United States, by the act of 1864, relinquished and granted all their right and title for the same uses and purposes. Clearly, therefore, the act of Congress could not have been intended as the grant of a new right, but simply as the confirmation of the old one. The title of the city is the old imperfect title from Mexico, confirmed by the authoritative recognition of Congress. Previous to the passage of this act, the city had prosecuted its claim against the United States under the act of March 3, 1851, to ascertain and settle private land-claims in California, and that action was still pending when this confirmatory statute was passed. The original claim being for a larger quantity of land than was embraced in this relinquishment, the suit went on in the courts until March 8, 1866, when the United States, by another statute 'to quiet the title to certain lands within the corporate limits of the city of San Francisco' (14 Stat. 4), in terms confirmed the claim of the city to all the lands embraced in the decree of the Circuit Court then pending here on appeal. It is clear, therefore, that the case is within that part of the statute which relates to titles derived from the Mexican government.

One other question, arising under the Statute of Limitations, remains to be considered, and this grows out of the last clause in the proviso of the act of 1863, in which five years is given to the holder of a title derived from the Spanish or the Mexican government 'to make his defence to an action founded upon the title thereto.' If we understand correctly the position taken by counsel, it is that the holder of a title under a Mexican grant will not be permitted to set up his grant as a defence to an action brought against him for the recovery of the property granted, unless he makes his defence within five years after the date of confirmation, whether the suit in which the defence is to be made was commenced within that time or not. The courts of California have had no little difficulty in giving a construction to this and other kindred portions of this statute; but whatever else it may mean, we think it clear that it cannot be what the plaintiff claims. The facts in this case present, in the strongest light, the utter absurdity of such an interpretation. The plaintiff's grantor entered into the possession of the premises in 1850 or 1851, without a shadow of title, and remained until May 8, 1867, when he was ousted. He acquired no title by his possession. The title under which he was ousted was a Mexican grant, not confirmed until July 1, 1864. The owner of this grant remained in peaceable possession, claiming title, until April 30, 1872, when this suit was begun. This was more than five years after the date of the confirmation of the grant, but less than that time by eight days from the commencement of possession. As the possession of the owner had not ripened into a perfect title, he was driven to his defence under the grant. The plaintiff, a mere trespasser originally, having no right whatever except that of prior naked occupancy, purposely delaying his action for more than five years from the date of the confirmation of the grant, now seeks to get rid of the grant as a defence to his action, because it is more than five years old. If this be the operation of the statute, it has, in a single line, made substantially worthless as muniments of title all confirmed Mexican grants, and that, too, in a State where titles are so largely drawn from such sources. It would be monstrous to suppose the legislature could have been guilty of such folly.

The pleadings are sufficient to enable the defendants to avail themselves of their proof. In ejectment, the plaintiff recovers upon the strength of his own title, and not upon the weakness of that of his adversary. The plaintiff declared generally upon his title, without setting out the particulars. The answer of the defendant was a general denial. The plaintiff undertook to establish his title under the Van Ness ordinance, by proving the requisite possession. To rebut the effect of this evidence the defendants made proof of the grant, under which they claimed, to show that the title under the ordinance did not pass to the plaintiff. Until the plaintiff put in his testimony, there was nothing upon the record to show what his claim of title was. Certainly, under such circumstances, it was not incumbent on the defendant to state in his answer the matters on which he relied, to defeat any title that might be developed upon the trial.

Judgment affirmed.

title: Palmer v. Low/Opinion of the Court


text: Talk:Palmer v. Low/Opinion of the Court

title: Talk:Palmer v. Low/Opinion of the Court


text:
Glenny v. Langdon (98 U.S. 20)

APPEAL from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of Ohio.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

The case was argued by Mr. S. T. Crawford for the appellant, and by Mr. Stanley Matthews for the appellee.

MR. JUSTICE CLIFFORD delivered the opinion of the court.

title: Glenny v. Langdon (98 U.S. 20)


text: Talk:Glenny v. Langdon (98 U.S. 20)

title: Talk:Glenny v. Langdon (98 U.S. 20)


text:
Glenny v. Langdon (98 U.S. 20)/Opinion of the Court

District courts of the United States are constituted courts of bankruptcy, and as such they have original jurisdiction in all matters and proceedings in bankruptcy, with power to hear and adjudicate the same according to the provisions of the Bankrupt Act.

Jurisdiction of those courts in that regard extends as well to the collection of all the assets of the bankrupt as to all cases and controversies between the bankrupt and any of his creditors, and to all acts, matters, and things to be done under and in virtue of the bankruptcy, until the final distribution and settlement of the estate of the bankrupt and the close of the bankruptcy proceedings. 14 Stat. 518; Rev. Stat., sect. 4972.

Creditors appoint the assignee; and the provision is, that, as soon as he is appointed and qualified, the judge, or when there is no opposing interest, the register, shall, by an instrument under his hand, assign and convey to the assignee all the estate, real and personal, of the bankrupt, with all his deeds, books, and papers relating thereto, and that such assignment shall relate back to the commencement of the proceedings in bankruptcy, the express enactment being that by operation of law the title to all such property and estate, both real and personal, shall vest in such assignee. Id., sect. 5044.

Explicit, comprehensive, and unqualified as the words of that provision are, still the instrument of assignment is made even more extensively operative by what follows in the same section of the original enactment, which provides that all property conveyed by the bankrupt in fraud of his creditors,. . . and all his rights of action for property or estate, real or personal, and all other causes of action arising from contract or from the taking or detention or injury to the property of the bankrupt,. . . shall, in virtue of the adjudication of bankruptcy and the appointment of his assignee, be at once vested in such assignee. 14 Stat. 523; Rev. Stat., sect. 5046.

Sufficient appears to show that certain debtors of the complainant and other creditors failed in business, and made, under the State law, a general assignment of their property to an assignee for the benefit of their creditors, prior to their being adjudged bankrupts. Pursuant to that assignment the assignee accepted the trust, and converted all of the visible property of the insolvents surrendered to him into money, and made final distribution of the proceeds among the creditors.

Charges of fraud against the debtors are made by the complainant, to the effect that they concealed large amounts of other property from their creditors and from the assignee, as fully set forth in the bill of complainant.

On the 10th of August, 1867, one of the said debtors filed his petition in bankruptcy, and on the 11th of October following, the firm of which the first-named debtor was a partner also filed their petition in bankruptcy; and the firm and each partner were duly adjudged bankrupts, the respondent, J. W. Caldwell, being subsequently appointed assignee in each case. They, the bankrupts, surrendered no property, and made oath that they had none, not excepted from the operation of the Bankrupt Act. Discovery has since been made, as the complainant alleges, that the bankrupts had fraudulently concealed a large amount of property not surrendered to the State assignee, or the assignee in bankruptcy, and that one of the firm made large gains and profits subsequent to the assignment under the State law and prior to the time when the firm was adjudged bankrupt.

Secret and fraudulent devices, as the complainant alleges, were employed by the insolvent debtors to conceal their property from the knowledge of their creditors and the assignee; and he describes the means which led to the discovery of the property, and avers that the respondent assignee was advised of the facts set forth, and that he was requested to adopt means to recover the same, or to allow his name to be used for that purpose, but that he refused so to do.

Both the complainant and respondents are citizens of the same State; but the complainant, being a creditor of the bankrupts, instituted the suit in his own name, claiming the right to do so because the assignee refused to proceed to recover the property, or to allow his name to be used for that purpose. Service was made; and the respondents appeared, and demurred to the bill of complaint, showing, among other things, the following causes: 1. That the complainant has no capacity or right in equity to bring the suit. 2. That the complainant has never proved his claim against the estate of the bankrupts.

Beyond all doubt, the suit in this case is brought to recover property conveyed by the bankrupts in fraud of their creditors, which, by the express words of the Bankrupt Act, vested in the assignee by virtue of the instrument of assignment executed at the time the assignee was appointed.

Jurisdiction of the Circuit Court in the case cannot be sustained upon the ground of the citizenship of the parties, as the record shows that the complainant and respondents are citizens of the same State; nor can it be upheld under the provision of the Bankrupt Act, which provides that the circuit courts shall have concurrent jurisdiction with the district courts of all suits at law or in equity, brought by an assignee in bankruptcy against any person claiming any adverse interest, or by such person against an assignee, touching any property or rights of the bankrupt, transferable to or vested in such assignee, for the plain reason that controversies, in order that they may be cognizable under that provision, either in the circuit or district court, must have respect to some property or rights of property of the bankrupt, transferable to or vested in such assignee; and the suit, whether it be a suit at law or in equity, must be in the name of one of the parties described in the provision, and be against the other, as appears by the express words of the provision. Smith v. Mason, 14 Wall. 431; Morgan v. Thornhill, 11 id. 75.

Nor is there any thing in the case of Clark v. Clark et al. (17 How. 315) inconsistent with the preceding proposition, when that case is properly understood. By the pleadings and proofs, it appears that the debtor had a large claim against Mexico pending before commissioners prior to the time he filed his petition in bankruptcy; that he was adjudged bankrupt before his claim was allowed; that the description of the claim in his schedule of assets was not such as to render it available to his creditors; that the assignee, having been empowered to sell his assets, sold the same to the sister of the bankrupt for a nominal sum, and that she immediately reconveyed the same to her brother; that he, the brother, subsequently prosecuted the claim, and recovered the same to the amount of $69,429.04, which was paid into the national treasury; that his brother, a judgment creditor, for himself and others, filed a bill of complaint here in the Circuit Court against the bankrupt, claiming the fund, the assignee having died before the same was recovered. Immediate steps were taken to procure the appointment of a new assignee, which appointment was made by the proper district court without delay; and the case shows that he forthwith petitioned the Circuit Court here to be admitted a party complainant in the same bill of complaint, and that he claimed the fund. Hearing was had; and the Circuit Court admitted the new assignee as a party complainant, and enjoined the secretary of the treasury not to pay out the fund until the further order of the court, and finally decreed that the fund belonged to the newly appointed assignee. Appeal was taken by the bankrupt, and this court affirmed the decree of the Circuit Court.

Nothing was decided in that case except that the newly appointed assignee was a proper party complainant in the bill filed by the bankrupt subsequent to the decease of the original assignee, and before his place was filled by a new appointment, and that the fund belonged to the successor as the representative of the bankrupt estate. Further litigations followed, which show to a demonstration that neither the bankrupt nor any creditor could maintain any such suit. Clark v. Hackett, 1 Cliff. 273; s. c. 1 Black, 77.

Suppose it to be true, as alleged, that the described property and rights of the bankrupts which form the subject-matter of the present controversy were transferred to and vested in the assignee, it by no means follows that the Circuit Court has jurisdiction of the case, or that the complainant can maintain the suit; as it is clear to a demonstration that the instrument of conveyance referred to did not vest the property or any right to recover the same in the complainant or his associate creditors; nor is the claim which he makes to the property in any legal sense adverse to the rights of the assignee. What the complainant claims as against the assignee is that he, the assignee, refused to institute the suit, or to allow his name to be used for the purpose. He claims no interest in the property of the bankrupt adverse to the assignee; and if he did, the claim could not be sustained for a moment, as the entire property is transferred to the assignee, to be converted into money for distribution.

Unless the assignee can collect what is due to the bankrupt, he can never perform the duty assigned to him as the representative of the bankrupt; and the first section of the Bankrupt Act expressly provides that the jurisdiction of the district courts shall extend to the collection of all the assets of the bankrupt, and to all acts, matters, and things to be done under and in virtue of the bankruptcy.

'Debts due' to the bankrupt, as well as all his rights of action, vest in the assignee by virtue of the adjudication in bankruptcy, and the appointment of the assignee as the representative of the bankrupt. Shearman v. Bingham, 7 Nat. Bank Reg. 493.

Power and authority are also vested in the assignee by virtue of the bankruptcy, and his appointment to manage, dispose of, sue for, and recover all his property or estate, real or personal, debts or effects, and to defend all suits at law or in equity pending against the bankrupt. 14 Stat. 525.

Congress, in framing the Bankrupt Act, it is believed, intended to provide instrumentalities for its complete execution, and such as are sufficient to carry it into full effect. State courts may, doubtless, exercise concurrent jurisdiction with the district courts in certain cases for the collection of assets not inconsistent with the Bankrupt Act; but Congress, in the judgment of the court, intended to provide the means for the execution of the law in all cases, even though the State courts should refuse to exercise jurisdiction in such cases. Lathrop, Assignee, v. Drake et al., 91 U.S. 516.

Support to that proposition is found in the fact that the assignee is authorized under the order of the court to redeem or discharge any mortgage or conditional contract or pledge or deposit, or lien upon any property, real or personal, whenever payable, and to tender due performance thereof, or to sell the same, subject to such mortgage, lien, or other incumbrances; the provision being that the debtor shall, at the request of the assignee, and at the expense of the estate, make and execute any instruments, deeds, and writings which may be proper to enable the assignee to possess himself fully of all the assets of the bankrupt.

Other provisions of the Bankrupt Act forcibly confirm the same views, two of which will be mentioned: 1. That the assignee shall demand and receive from any and all persons holding the same, all the estate assigned, or intended to be assigned, real or personal, and shall sell all such as is unincumbered which comes to his hands, on such terms as he thinks most for the interest of the creditors, subject to the right of the court for cause shown to make such order concerning the time, place, and manner of sale, as will, in its opinion, promote those objects. 2. That the assignee shall have the like remedy to recover all said estate, debts, and effects, in his own name, as the debtor might have had if the decree in bankruptcy had not been rendered, and no assignment had been made. 14 Stat. 524.

Bankruptcy courts have original jurisdiction in their respective districts of all matters and proceedings in bankruptcy, and are authorized to hear and adjudicate upon the same, according to the provisions of the Bankrupt Act. They have full authority to compel obedience to all orders and decrees passed by them in bankruptcy, by process of contempt and other remedial process, to the same extent that the circuit courts now have in any suit pending therein in equity.

Assignees are in the first instance chosen by the creditors; but they may be removed by the court, after due notice, for any cause which, in the judgment of the court, renders such removal necessary or expedient. Id. 525.

Authority for a creditor to bring suit to recover the property or rights of property of the bankrupt, under any circumstances, is certainly not given in the Bankrupt Act, nor is any such pretence set up by the complainant. Instead of that, he admits, what cannot be denied, that the entire property of the bankrupt, except what is reserved from the operation of the Bankrupt Act, vests in the assignee by virtue of the instrument of conveyance required to be made as soon as the assignee is appointed and qualified.

Due conveyance of the kind was made in this case, nor does he attempt to controvert the proposition that the assignee is the only party designated by the Bankrupt Act as the proper claimant of the bankrupt's property and estate. The grounds of recovery, as stated in the bill of complaint, are that before filing the same he made application to the assignee to proceed by bill in chancery or other proper mode, or allow his name to be used for the purpose, to subject the said property and rights of the bankrupt, fraudulently concealed and retained, and to convert the same into money, to be paid and distributed to the creditors, which he as such assignee declined and refused to do.

Viewed in the light of those allegations, the theory of the complainant is that the assignee, inasmuch as he declined to comply with the request, and refused either to bring the suit or to allow his name to be used to recover the property and rights of property of the bankrupt, was guilty of a fraud against the creditors; and that the latter, by virtue of such request and refusal, had a right to seek a remedy in their own names, not only against the bankrupt and the possessor of the concealed property and estate, but also against the assignee, who is deemed to be responsible for the concealed property. Such a remedy, it is conceded, does not grow out of or depend upon the bankrupt law; but the argument is, that it is founded upon the enlarged principles of equity which adapt themselves to the exigencies of the case, and enable the court to mould the decree to suit the various equities arising between the parties to the litigation.

Authorities are cited to prove that the person for whose benefit a trust is executed, who is to be the ultimate receiver of the money, may maintain a suit in equity to have it paid to himself; and the proposition is advanced, that, where a trustee is guilty of what the law considers a breach of trust in regard to the trust property, the cestui que trust may invoke the aid of equity to give him such remedy in the premises as the circumstances may require.

Grant that, and the concession shows to a demonstration that the present suit cannot be maintained, as the record shows that the complainant and respondents are citizens of the same State; and of course the Circuit Court had no jurisdiction of the case, it being conceded by the complainant that the remedy sought does not grow out of or depend upon the bankrupt law.

Conceded or not, it is clear that the suit in this case finds no support in the provisions of the Bankrupt Act, as sufficiently appears from the references to that act already made; but if more be needed, it will be found in the section which provides that no creditor whose debt is provable shall be allowed to prosecute to final judgment any suit at law or in equity therefor against the bankrupt until the question of the debtor's discharge shall have been determined. Rev. Stat., sect. 5106.

Appellate jurisdiction, as exercised under the twenty-second section of the Judiciary Act, is not conferred upon the circuit courts in any case under the Bankrupt Act, where the ruling, order, decision, or decree of the Circuit Court is made or rendered by that court in a summary way. All such rulings, orders, decisions, or decrees must be revised, if at all, under the first clause of the second section of that act, in respect to which the determination of the Circuit Court is final and conclusive. Knight v. Cheney, 5 Bank. Reg. 313; Morgan v. Thornhill, 11 Wall. 65.

Creditors can have no remedy which will reach property fraudulently conveyed, except through the assignee, for two reasons: 1. Because all such property, by the express words of the Bankrupt Act, vest in the assignee by virtue of the adjudication in bankruptcy and of his appointment. 2. Because they cannot sustain any suit against the bankrupt.

Property fraudulently conveyed vests in the assignee, who may recover the same and distribute its proceeds as the Bankrupt Act requires. Such a conveyance, says Curtis, is no effectual conveyance as against the interest intended to be defrauded, which is represented by the assignee, so far as respects all creditors who prove their claims. They can have no remedy which will reach such property except through the assignee, not only for the reasons already assigned, but because their remedies are absorbed in the great and comprehensive remedy under the commission by virtue of which the assignee is to collect and distribute among them the property of their debtor, 'to which they are justly and legally entitled.' Carr v. Hilton, 1 Curt. C. C. 234.

Opposed to that proposition is the case of Franklin v. Farr (2 Eq. Ca. Abr. 102), in which it was held that, if the assignee refuses to bring a bill that is for the benefit of the bankrupt's estate, the creditor has the right to bring such a bill, under peril of costs.

Enough has been already remarked to show that the Bankrupt Act makes it the express and positive duty of the assignee to collect and distribute all the assets of the bankrupt, including property fraudulently conveyed prior to the decree of bankruptcy, and that authority is given to him to sue for the same under the direction and control of the court, which may, in its discretion and for good cause shown, require the assignee by a specific order to take any proper step to secure the due administration of the bankrupt law, and the full and complete protection of the rights of the creditors interested in the proceedings; that ample means are placed in the hands of the creditors to enable them to inform the court of the necessity of any particular proceeding to be taken for that purpose, to which it may be added that the power of the court to compel a compliance with any such order is plenary and beyond all doubt; or if the assignee fails to do so, to punish him for contempt, or to remove him and appoint another in his place. Bump, Bankruptcy (10th ed.), 147.

Plenary as the powers granted to the bankrupt courts are, there is no occasion for any departure from them in order to the complete execution of the duties imposed, which of itself is a sufficient reason for holding that the rule laid down in the preceding case is not applicable in our bankrupt system. Rev. Stat., sect. 5039.

Neither the assignee nor any creditor can have any greater right under the Bankrupt Act than the act itself confers; and if it be conceded that the remedy sought in this case does not depend upon the Bankrupt Act, then it is clear that the court below had no jurisdiction of the case, unless the proposition can be sustained that such a suit may be maintained in a circuit court, where both parties are citizens of the same State.

Nor is that the only objection to the theory advanced by the complainant; for if one creditor may sue in such a case, then all may sue, and the result might be that the proceedings in bankruptcy would be transferred not only to the Circuit Court, but to every State court within whose jurisdiction a defendant may reside.

Even if the case referred to, and others of like character, were good law in the courts of the country where they were made, still it is clear that the question before the court must be controlled by the provisions of our Bankrupt Act; but the doctrine of that case has long since been overruled, and is no longer regarded as correct, even in the jurisdiction where it was made, of which there is abundant evidence.

Creditors of an insolvent, said Lord Cottenham, cannot maintain a suit to recover the property or rights which belong to the insolvent, and the same rule applies to suits for a similar object brought by the insolvent himself. Heath v. Chadwick, 2 Ph. 649.

Prima facie the bankrupt is divested of the whole estate, nor have the creditors any right to sue; but if it be represented that the assignees will not sue, the court having jurisdiction of the matter may direct the recusant assignees to proceed, or may give the bankrupt or a creditor the right to institute the suit in the name of the assignee, first indemnifying the assignee against costs. Benfield v. Solomons, 9 Ves. 83.

Attempt to maintain such a suit was made in Yewens v. Robinson (11 Sim. 105); but the assignees demurred to the bill of complaint, and the court sustained the demurrer, holding that the true method to proceed in such a case was to apply to the court of insolvency to have the assignees removed and others appointed in their place.

Application was made to the court in the case of Ex parte Ryland, and the petitioning creditor was allowed by the court to sue in the name of the assignee, first giving the assignee indemnity against cost and damage. 2 Deac. & Chit. 393. Corresponding decision was made in the case of Hammond v. Atwood (3 Madd. Ch. 158), the court holding that the proper course was to apply to the court by petition to have the assignees removed and new assignees appointed. Major v. Aukland, 3 Hare, 77.

Bankrupts uncertificated cannot file a bill of complaint against their assignees for an account; nor can the bankrupt obtain such relief by charging fraud and collusion between the assignees and a third party, the true remedy being a petition for relief to the court of original jurisdiction. Tarleton v. Hornby, 1 You. & Coll. 193.

Suffice it to say that the law is now well settled in the parent country that creditors cannot maintain any such suit against the assignee, for the purpose set forth in the present bill of complaint.

Strong support to the conclusion is also derived from the fact that cases arise in bankruptcy proceedings where the assignee is not bound to take possession of some particular asset which passed to him by the instrument of assignment. Examples of the kind, such as certain leasehold estates which would burden instead of benefiting the fund to be distributed, are given by Judge Ware in the case of Smith v. Gordon (6 Law Rep. 317), to which reference is made as showing the principle of the rule.

Leasehold estates pass to the assignee under the English bankrupt laws; but the assignee, in certain cases, is not bound to take the lease of the estate where the rent is greater than the value of the lease, as the effect would be to burden the estate of the bankrupt, and to diminish the fund to be distributed among the creditors. Copeland v. Stephens, 1 Barn. & Ald. 604; Amory v. Lawrence, 3 Cliff. 535; Fowler v. Down, 1 Bos. & Pull. 157; Fox v. Webb, 7 T. R. 397; Wilkins v. Fry, 1 Meriv. 244.

It has long been a recognized principle of the bankrupt law, says Robson, that the assignees of a bankrupt are not, in certain cases, bound to take property of an onerous or unprofitable character, which would burden instead of benefiting the estate; and there are numerous decisions, English and American, which support the proposition; nor are the creditors without remedy in such a case, even if the assignee should erroneously or unwisely fail to take such possession, as the creditors may, by petition, apply to the court of original jurisdiction to compel him to carry out their wishes; and if the District Court should deny their petition, they would have the right to demand a review of the decision by the Circuit Court, under the first clause of the second section of the Bankrupt Act. Robson (3d ed.), 398.

Decree affirmed.


text: Talk:Glenny v. Langdon (98 U.S. 20)/Opinion of the Court


text:
Bates v. Coe

APPEAL from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of Ohio.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Mr. James Moore for the appellant.

Mr. E. E. Wood, contra.

MR. JUSTICE CLIFFORD delivered the opinion of the court.

title: Bates v. Coe


text: Talk:Bates v. Coe

title: Talk:Bates v. Coe