text:
Watson v. Sutherland/Opinion of the Court

There are, in this record, two questions for consideration. Was Sutherland entitled to invoke the interposition of a court of equity; and if so, did the evidence warrant the court below in perpetuating the injunction?

It is contended that the injunction should have been refused, because there was a complete remedy at law. If the remedy at law is sufficient, equity cannot give relief, 'but it is not enough that there is a remedy at law; it must be plain and adequate, or in other words, as practical and efficient to the ends of justice, and its prompt administration, as the remedy in equity.' How could Sutherland be compensated at law, for the injuries he would suffer, should the grievances of which he complains be consummated?

If the appellants made the levy, and prosecuted it in good faith, without circumstances of aggravation, in the honest belief that Wroth & Fullerton owned the stock of goods (which they swear to in their answer), and it should turn out, in an action at law instituted by Sutherland for the trespass, that the merchandise belonged exclusively to him, it is well settled that the measure of damages, if the property were not sold, could not extend beyond the injury done to it, or, if sold, to the value of it, when taken, with interest from the time of the taking down to the trial.

And this is an equal rule, whether the suit is against the marshal or the attaching creditors, if the proceedings are fairly conducted, and there has been no abuse of authority. Any harsher rule would interfere to prevent the assertion of rights honestly entertained, and which should be judicially investigated and settled. 'Legal compensation refers solely to the injury done to the property taken, and not to any collateral or consequential damages, resulting to the owner, by the trespass.' Loss of trade, destruction of credit, and failure of business prospects, are collateral or consequential damages, which it is claimed would result from the trespass, but for which compensation cannot be awarded in a trial at law.

Commercial ruin to Sutherland might, therefore, be the effect of closing his store and selling his goods, and yet the common law fail to reach the mischief. To prevent a consequence like this, a court of equity steps in, arrests the proceedings in limine; brings the parties before it; hears their allegations and proofs, and decrees, either that the proceedings shall be unrestrained, or else perpetually enjoined. The absence of a plain and adequate remedy at law affords the only test of equity jurisdiction, and the application of this principle to a particular case, must depend altogether upon the character of the case, as disclosed in the pleadings. In the case we are considering, it is very clear that the remedy in equity could alone furnish relief, and that the ends of justice required the injunction to be issued.

The remaining question in this case is one of fact.

The appellants, in their answers, deny that the property was Sutherland's, but insist that it was fraudulently purchased by him of Wroth & Fullerton, and is subject to the payment of their debts. It seems that Wroth & Fullerton had been partners in business in Baltimore, and suspended payment in March, 1861, in debt to the appellants, besides other creditors. Although the appellants did not recover judgments against them until after their sale to Sutherland, yet other creditors did, who were delayed in consequence of the then existing laws of Maryland, which provided that executions should be stayed until the 1st of November, 1862. Taking advantage of this provision of law, the answer charges that Wroth & Fullerton, after their failure, collected a large portion of their assets, but appropriated to the payment of their debts only a small portion thus realized, and used the residue to buy the very goods in question, which Sutherland fraudulently purchased from them on the 27th of October, 1862, in execution of a combination and conspiracy with them to hinder, delay, and defraud their creditors. The answers also deny that the injury to Sutherland would be irreparable, even if the stock were his, and insist that he could be amply compensated by damages at law. After general replication was filed, proofs were taken, but, as in all contests of this kind, there was a great deal of irrelevant testimony, and very much that had only a remote bearing on the question at issue between the parties. It is unnecessary to discuss the facts of this case, for it would serve no useful purpose to do so. We are satisfied, from a consideration of the whole evidence, that Wroth & Fullerton acted badly, but that Sutherland was not a party to any fraud which they contemplated against their creditors, and that he made the purchase in controversy, in good faith, and for an honest purpose.

The evidence also shows conclusively, that had not the levy been arrested by injunction, damages would have resulted to Sutherland, which could not have been repaired at law.

The decree of the Circuit Court is, therefore,

AFFIRMED.


text: Talk:Watson v. Sutherland/Opinion of the Court

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


text:
Parmelee v. Simpson

APPEAL from the Supreme Court of the Territory of Nebraska; the case being thus:

Parmelee filed a bill of complaint against Megeath, Bovey, and one Simpson, in the District Court for Douglas County, Nebraska Territory, sitting in chancery, for foreclosure and sale under a mortgage.

The bill set forth a mortgage executed by Megeath and Bovey, duly acknowledged on the 17th April, 1858, and duly recorded on the same day. It stated that Simpson claimed some interest in the mortgaged premises, and prayed that he also be made a defendant.

The bill was taken pro confesso against Megeath and Bovey.

Simpson admitted the making and recording of the mortgage, as alleged in the bill, but set up this defence:

'That he (Simpson) is the lawful owner of a portion of the premises and lands [defining it] described, and was such lawful owner at the time the mortgage and note were executed, anf for some time before; that he was so seized of said premises in fee simple on the 15th day of April, 1858' (two days before the mortgage), 'by virtue of a deed from Bovey, and that on the same day the deed was duly recorded, after having been duly acknowledged, &c.,' before one Sayre, a notary public. And that this defendant paid to the said Bovey a valuable and adequate consideration therefor, as is expressed in said deed.

'That some time in the month of August, A. D. 1860, he learned for the first time that a pretended deed, purporting to have been made an executed by him to Bovey, conveying the premises, dated April 17th, 1858, but without being duly acknowledged, was upon the records of the register's office, but that the same was a forgery; that he never executed such or any other deed conveying the premises; that he never received any consideration for the deed from Bovey, or anybody else; nor did he ever authorize any one to execute the said deed for him.'

A proved copy of the deed of April 17th, 1858, set up, from Bovey to Simpson, was produced from the office of the recorder of deeds of the county, but not an original.

The testimony of Simpson himself showed the following facts: He had come from California to Nebraska, arriving there for the first time in his life, April 18th, 1858 (three days after the date of the deed). He first there saw Bovey, who was an acquaintance of his, on the afternoon of that day. On the following day, the 19th, Bovey took him out to the land and showed it to him, stating that he had conveyed it to him in consideration of certain money previously received; showing Simpson, then, for the first time, the deed. Simpson had no knowledge of any intention on Bovey's part thus to convey the land further than a letter from him written at Chillicothe, Ohio, early in December, 1857; that he 'intended conveying some property he had pre-empted.' Simpson took the deed and put it in his trunk at his hotel, from which, in June, 1858, he missed it along with other papers. Bovey had been allowed access to the trunk to look for another paper. Simpson wrote to Bovey in the winter of 1860 about it, but received no answer. A diligent search failed to discover it.

The official index at the register's office stated that the deed had been indexed as received for record, April 15, 1858. But two witnesses, one of whom had been requested to attend to the drawing of the mortgage, and another who had gone with him as a friend to examine the records in the register's office, testified, in a positive way, that they had examined very carefully records and indexes on the morning of the 17th, and that nothing was then on record; that they had made the examination carefully, because, in a previous transaction, Bovey had been found 'tricky and unreliable,' and was 'pretty well known for turning sharp corners.' Sayre, the notary, before whom the deed purported to be acknowledged, testified that he had not taken any acknowledgment of a deed from Bovey.

No deed from Simpson to Bovey, it seemed pretty clear, had ever been executed at all.

The District Court decreed for the complainant, directing a sale. The Supreme Court of the Territory reversed the decree; and on appeal from such reversal the case was now here.

Mr. Carlisle, for the mortgagee, appellant:

It is impossible to read the case without being satisfied that the pretended conveyance from Bovey to Simpson, on the eve of the execution of the mortgage, where the terms doubtless had been already agreed upon, was a mere trick of Bovey, of which Simpson was then wholly ignorant (he not having arrived in Nebraska till several days afterwards), but of which he subsequently took advantage.

Independently of actual fraud, however, merely executing a deed, and delivering it to the register for registry, is no delivery, unless the grantee so direct it or subsequently agrees to it.

But even if the deed were recorded, it was not acknowledged, and so passed no title. The deed itself is not produced by Simpson, but a copy only. Simpson says he has lost the original. But Sayre, the notary public, proves that he never took such an acknowledgment.

For some unexplained reason, Bovey placed on record, on the same day of the execution of the mortgage, a reconveyance from Simpson. Doubtless he knew that he was the real owner all the time, and perhaps he thought, by this ingenious contrivance, to cut out the mortgage, executed in the interim between the two days, and while the title was apparently in Simpson. This reconveyance is proved to be a forgery.

Upon the whole case, Bovey and Simpson appear to be confederates in the attempt to defraud the mortgagee, and to have the land between them, free of its obligation.

Messrs. Redick and Briggs, contra:

The deed from Bovey to Simpson was in law properly delivered on the 15th of April, 1858.

There are two kinds of delivery.

1. An express delivery, as where the deed is placed directly in the grantee's hands, or in the hands of his agent.

2. Implied or constructive delivery, as where a deed is placed in the hands of the recorder for the use and benefit of the grantee, or when it is transmitted by mail to the grantee, or otherwise. The same is in law a good delivery. The delivery of the deed in question comes within the latter class.

3. In the case at the bar the arrangement for the sale of the land was made in December, 1857, by letter from Bovey to Simpson. It appears that Bovey was indebted to Simpson, who then resided in California, and that to pay that debt Bovey wrote to Simpson that he would convey the land to him. In view, perhaps, of this fact Simpson left California and arrived in Nebraska on the 18th of April, 1858, and on the next day went with Bovey to the land to see it. Now what was the intention of Bovey in this matter? Was it not to make a complete conveyance of the land to Simpson? And this intention is what the authorities point to as decisive of the delivery. If this is wanting, then there is no delivery, even though the deed may be put into the hands of the grantee; and if the grantee intends to pass the title, it is wholly immaterial whether the grantee ever obtains the corporeal possession of the instrument or not. It would be wholly unsafe for persons living at a distance from each other to do business affecting the title to real estate, if the rule set up by the appellee were to obtain.

The deed was properly recorded on the 15th day of April, 1858, two days before the mortgage was executed. The index, which was exhibited to the court below, shows the entry fairly made, and in its order.

But the appellants seek to impeach and set aside a public record, by the oral testimony of witnesses years after the transaction. All this testimony is incompetent. If public records can be set aside in this cheap way, what safety can there be in dealing in real estate? What avail are recorded titles if this kind of testimony be permitted to overturn them! If the register has failed to do his duty, he is liable on his bond to the party injured.

Mr. Justice DAVIS delivered the opinion of the court.

title: Parmelee v. Simpson


text: Talk:Parmelee v. Simpson

title: Talk:Parmelee v. Simpson


text:
Parmelee v. Simpson/Opinion of the Court

There is no difficulty in this case. It is claimed by Simpson, that he holds, free from the obligation of the mortgage, the lands, which Bovey conveyed to him, two days before its execution. The mortgagors, Megeath and Bovey, owned in severalty the lands mortgaged, and Parmelee seeks to sell, whatever is embraced in the mortgage, in order to make his debt. He denies that Simpson's deed can take precedence of the mortgage, because, if given for a valuable consideration, executed and recorded in conformity with the laws of Nebraska, it was never delivered until long after his security was taken. If this position is sustained by the evidence, there is an end of the controversy, for nothing passes by a deed until it is delivered.

It is a circumstance of great suspicion that the original deed was not produced on the trial, as the date of its registry was disputed, and Sayre, the notary public, denied having taken the acknowledgment. It is very clear that Bovey was capable of any fraud, as it is proved that the pretended reconveyance from Simpson to him, which was placed on record the same day the mortgage was executed and recorded, was a forgery.

But, conceding that there is not proof enough to discredit the record, and that Sayre is mistaken, still, the deed cannot defeat the mortgage, because the delivery-one essential part to its due execution-did not occur until after the mortgage was admitted to registry. Simpson was on his way from California, when Bovey, without his knowledge or authority, delivered it to the register of deeds for record, and he did not arrive in Nebraska until three or four days afterwards, when he first learned what had been done. The only information which Simpson had concerning the matter was contained in a letter from Bovey, informing him of his intention to convey to him some pre-empted lands in Nebraska on his arrival there, in the spring of 1858. To this letter there was no reply, and there is nothing to show that Simpson knew the quantity or value of the lands, or ever agreed to receive a conveyance for them in satisfaction of Bovey's indebtedness to him. And there is not a particle of evidence that any one was authorized to receive the deed for him. The placing the deed on record was Bovey's own act, and done without the assent of Simpson. Under this state of facts there was manifestly no delivery. The execution and registration of a deed, and delivery of it to the register for that purpose, does not vest the title in the grantee.

If Simpson had agreed to accept the deed in liquidation of his debt, and constituted the register his agent to receive it, then the delivery of the deed to the register would have been in legal contemplation a delivery to him. But it is said that he could ratify the acts of Bovey and the register. This is true, but he did not do this until after the execution and registration of the mortgage; and this ratification cannot relate back so as to cut out the mortgage. Simpson acquired no title until after the rights of the mortgagee had accrued, and he holds it encumbered with the lien of the mortgage.

The decree of the Supreme Court of the Territory is REVERSED, and this case is remanded to that court with directions to enter an order.

AFFIRMING THE DECREE OF THE DISTRICT COURT.


text: Talk:Parmelee v. Simpson/Opinion of the Court


text:
Woodworth v. Insurance Company

THIS was a question involving the proper disposition of the surplus proceeds of the sale of the schooner Harriet Ross in the Admiralty Court of the Northern District of Illinois.

The schooner had been libelled in that court for supplies furnished, to the value of $72, and sold for about $5000.

While the surplus proceeds of this sale were still in the registry, the Corn Exchange Insurance Company filed a libel against them. The libellant alleged that shortly before the schooner was seized at Chicago by the process of the District Court, a collision had occurred on Lake Ontario, between her and the schooner Flora Watson; that the Flora and her cargo were sunk by the collision; that this was caused solely by the want of care and skill on the part of the crew of the Harriet Ross; and that the libellant had taken risks on the Flora and her cargo, which it had been compelled to pay, to an amount exceeding $8000.

Bradley, owner of the Harriet Ross at the time of the collision, appeared as claimant of the proceeds of her sale, and defendant this suit. An answer was filed by him and testimony taken, and the matter litigated on a considerable body of testimony between the Corn Exchange Company and Bradley.

Some time after the Corn Exchange Company had filed its libel against the proceeds of the sale, one Woodworth, who was mortgagee of the Harriet Ross for a large sum prior to the collision; and who, when she was sold, under the decree, for $72 for supplies, had become the purchaser of her, filed a similar libel, claiming as assignee of the Columbian Insurance Company, which had also paid a loss upon a part of the cargo of the Flora Watson. This libel was filed April 1, 1863, but no further proceeding was had in regard to it until February 2, 1864, when the libellant asked leave to amend his libel.

On the 14th April, 1864, still, however, before final decree in the matter between Bradley and the Corn Exchange Company, this same Woodworth filed another libel against these same proceeds and remanants, claiming as assignee of the Security Insurance Company, for similar loss paid on the hull of the Flora.

In the meantime, though as mortgagee of the vessel, Woodworth was entitled to these proceeds, unless the Harriet Ross should prove to be liable for the sinking of the Flora, he did nothing; deferring action on his part until that matter was litigated by Bradley, the former owner.

A decree, however, having been rendered in favor of the Corn Exchange Company, in December, declaring the proceeds of the Ross liable, Woodworth then proceeded with his libels.

The District Court was of opinion that he was not entitled to be paid the claims which he held as assignee of the Columbian and Security Companies until the Corn Exchange Company had been paid the full amount of its claim; and the Circuit Court was of the same opinion. The matter was now here on appeal.

Mr. Hibbard, for the appellant:

Woodworth is entitled to have his claims paid out of the proceeds in the registry, although the libel of the Corn Exchange Company was first filed, as his libel was filed before any decree of any kind was made in the other case. Had Woodworth, indeed, delayed filing the libel until after decree in the other case, the result might be different. But that is not the case, and an error would be made if the rule of that case were applied, as a suit in admiralty is against all the world, and as a decree binds all the world.

Mr. Rae, contra.

Mr. Justice MILLER delivered the opinion of the court.

title: Woodworth v. Insurance Company


text: Talk:Woodworth v. Insurance Company

title: Talk:Woodworth v. Insurance Company


text:
Woodworth v. Insurance Company/Opinion of the Court

The litigation to establish the liability of the Ross was troublesome and expensive to the Corn Exchange Company. Mr. Woodworth did not, in any manner, aid, or offer to aid in it. His interest was against the liability which the company sought to establish; for, if the Ross was declared not liable, he received these proceeds and remnants as mortgagee of that vessel. But, after permitting his own libel to sleep during this struggle, he attempts, when it is over, to revive that libel, and claims to share in the fruits of a victory won without his aid, and against his wishes. The District and Circuit Courts both thought he was not entitled to do this, so long as the Corn Exchange Company remained unpaid. In this view we concur.

Our remarks are meant to apply to the libel filed April 1, 1863. But all that we have said in reference to that libel applies with additional force to the one filed 14th April, 1864, arising from the longer delay in asserting the claim.

DECREES AFFIRMED WITH COSTS.


text: Talk:Woodworth v. Insurance Company/Opinion of the Court


text: Railroad Company v. Barron

title: Railroad Company v. Barron


text: Talk:Railroad Company v. Barron

title: Talk:Railroad Company v. Barron


text:
Railroad Company v. Barron/Opinion of the Court

ERROR to the Circuit Court for the Northern District of Illinois, the suit below having been one against a railroad company to recover damages for the death of a passenger killed by its negligence.

'SECT. 1. That whenever the death of a person shall be caused by wrongful act, neglect, or default, and the act, neglect, or default, is such as would, if death had not ensued, have entitled the party injured to maintain an action and recover damages in respect thereof, then, and in every such case, the person who, or company or corporation which, would have been liable if death had not ensued, shall be liable to an action for damages notwithstanding the death of the person injured, and although the death shall have been caused under such circumstances as amount to felony.

'SECT. 2. Every such action shall be brought by and in the name of the personal representatives of such deceased person, and the amount recovered in every such action shall be for the exclusive benefit of the widow and next of kin of such deceased person, and shall be distributed to such widow and next of kin, in the proportion provided by law, in relation to the distribution of personal property left by persons dying intestate; and in every such action the jury may give such damages as they shall deem a fair and just compensation with reference to the pecuniary injuries resulting from such death, to the wife and next of kin of such deceased person, not exceeding the sum of five thousand dollars.'

With this statute in force, Barron's executor brought a suit against the Illinois Central Railroad Company, to recover damages for the death of his testator, occasioned by the negligence of the company in conveying him as a passenger.

The deceased was killed while in the act of leaving the car in obedience to the orders of the conductor, who apprehended an immediate collision with an express train that was coming up behind with great speed, and which struck the car with such violence in the rear as to split and drive it on each side of the baggage car in front. The Illinois company owned the road, but had granted or leased to the Michigan Central Railroad Company, of which the express train was one of the line, the privilege of running their trains on this part of the road.

The testator was a bachelor, thirty-five years old, and had an estate of about $35,000, all of which, as it was stated in the argument, he left by his will to his father. He was an attorney by profession, but for four years prior to his death had been judge of the county court of Cook County, Illinois. His term of office having then recently expired, he had resumed, or was about to resume, the practice of his profession, with a fair promise, as the evidence tended to show, of doing as well as before he was elected judge. His professional income, prior to his election as judge, had been about $3000 dollars per annum.

The plaintiff was his father, and he left brothers and sisters; one of whom had formerly received some assistance from him for support.

The defendant's counsel asked the court to charge the jury as follows

'1st. That the statute under which the action was brought intends to give no damages for the injury received by the deceased, but refers wholly to the pecuniary loss which the next of kin may be found to have sustained. That it makes their pecuniary loss the sole measure of damages, and that the satisfaction of that loss is therefore the sole purpose for which an action of this kind can be instituted, there being nothing to be allowed for bereavement. And that it is incumbent on the plaintiff, before he can recover anything more than nominal damages, to show by the evidence that there are persons in existence entitled to claim the indemnity given by the law, and that they have sustained a pecuniary loss justifying their claim.

'2d. That to entitle the plaintiff to recover anything beyond merely nominal damages, the parties for whose benefit the action is brought must be shown by the evidence to have had at the time of the death of Barron a legal interest in his life, and that by his death they have been deprived of something to which they had a legal right.

'3d. That if the persons for whose benefit this action is brought have received in consequence of the death of said Barron, and out of this estate inherited by them from him, a pecuniary benefit greater than the maximum amount of damages which could, under any circumstances, be recovered in this action, then, as a matter of law, they have by the death of said Barron sustained no actual pecuniary injury for which compen sation can be recovered in this action.

'4th. That if the collision of the two trains of cars in question, and the death resulting therefrom, was occasioned solely by the carelessness or default of the persons in charge of the express train, and that the defendant had no authority or control over such persons, but that they were wholly under the authority and direction of the Michigan Central Railroad Company, then the defendant is not liable in this action, even for nominal damages.'

But the court refused so to charge the jury; and charged as follows:

It is contended by the defendant that as Barron was never married, the next of kin, being his father, brothers, and sisters, had no claim on him for support or services, and therefore there could have been no pecuniary loss to them by his death.

We cannot adopt this construction of the law, but charge you that there can be a recovery if the deceased left no kin surviving him who had any legal claim on him if living, for support.

The cause of action is given in the first section of the act in clear and unmistakable terms. If the injured party, by the common law, had a right to sue if he had lived, then if he dies his representatives can bring an action.

Many individuals who lose their lives by the fault of persons and corporations are of age, unmarried, and have no next of kin dependent on them for support. We cannot suppose that the statute intended to give the representatives of such persons the right to sue in one section and make that right nugatory in the second section, by depriving them of all damages.

The policy of the law was evidently to make common carriers more circumspect in regard to the lives intrusted to their care. They were responsible at common law if through their fault broken limbs were the result, but escaped responsibility if death ensued. To remedy this evil and provide a continuing responsibility, was in the opinion of the court, the object of the law.

We do not think it requisite to prove present actual pecuniary loss. It can rarely be done. The attempt to do it would substitute the opinion of witnesses for the conclusions of the jury. The facts proved will enable the jury to decide on the proper measure of responsibility. Some cases are harder than others, and the law intends that the jury shall discriminate in different cases. There is no fixed measure of damages, and no artificial rule by which the damages in a given case can be computed.

The jury are not to take in consideration the pain suffered by the deceased, or the wounded feelings of surviving relatives, and no damages are to be given by way of punishment.

In this case the next of kin are the parties who were interested in the life of the deceased. They were interested in the further accumulations which he might have added to his estate, and which might hereafter descend to them.

The jury have a right, in estimating the amount of pecuniary injury, to take into consideration all the circumstances attending the death of Barron-the relations between him and his next of kin, the amount of his property, the character of his business, and the prospective increase in wealth likely to accrue to a man of his age with the business and means which he had. There is a possibility in the chances of business that Barron's estate might have decreased rather than increased, and this possibility the jury may consider. The jury also have a right to take into consideration the contingency that he might have married, and his property descended in another channel.

And there may be other circumstances which might affect the question of pecuniary loss, which it is difficult for the court to particularize, but which will occur to you. The intention of the statute was to give a compensation for the pecuniary loss which the widow (if any) or the next of kin might sustain by the death of the party; and the jury are to determine, as men of experience and observation, from the proof what that loss is.

In order to render a verdict for the plaintiff it is necessary that the defendant should have been in fault.

The Illinois Central Railroad Company engaged to carry Judge Barron safely from Hyde Park to Chicago, and as a common carrier was bound to the most exact care and diligence required for the safety of passengers. . . ..

It is not a question which train was mostly in fault, but whether the train of the defendant was in fault at all. It is for the jury to say from the evidence whether the employees of the Illinois Central road used the necessary degree of care and diligence in the management of their train on that morning. . . ..

We understand that the road on which the accident occurred belonged to the defendants, and by its charter was under its sole control to carry passengers and property, and if it allowed the trains of the Michigan Central to run over it under the management of the agents of the Michigan Central, it should be done in such a manner as not to interfere with the safety of the passengers of the defendant, and as to such passengers the fault of the Michigan Central road in running their train is the fault of the defendant.

Verdict and judgment for $3750 damages. The case was now here on exceptions to the charge as made, and on the refusal to charge as requested.

Mr. Tracy, for the railroad company, plaintiff in error:

1. The court erred in declining th charge as requested in the first proposition.

The intention of the act was to compensate the widow and next of kin of the person killed for the pecuniary injury to them occasioned by his death. If the death caused them no pecuniary injury, the act gave them no damages, for the compensation for that was to measure the damages.

The statute is in form like one passed in New York, and frequently considered in the courts of that State. The decisions of these courts are pertinent then to this case. In Dickins v. New York Central Railroad, it was held, that a husband as administrator of his wife, whose death was caused by the act of another, and who had no children, and no near relatives but sisters, could not recover for damages resulting by her death to him, and only for pecuniary damages sustained by her next of kin.

So in Tilley v. Hudson River Railroad, that in an action by a husband, as administrator of a wife whose death was caused by the act of another, leaving children, the possibility that the children would have received an estate increased by their mother's earnings, could not be considered.

So in Oldfield v. New York and Harlem Railroad Company, where a little girl of six years old was killed, leaving a mother, the court charged in the words of the statute, and by explanation told the jury that the damages were to be a sum which, in their opinion, would be the pecuniary loss of the next of kin.

In the case at bar, there was no one of the next of kin who could properly be said to sustain any pecuniary loss by the testator's death. None of his next of kin had any pecuniary interest in his life. No one stood in the relation to him that the mother did to her child, and whose duty it would be to furnish it care and nurture. No one in the relation that the minor child did to its mother, who could receive the benefit of its services until it became of age. His father was not dependent upon him,-not entitled to his future earnings, nor were his brothers and sisters, and, indeed, instead of a pecuniary loss to them his death gave them, or one of them, an estate of $35,000, which otherwise he could not then receive, and which he might never receive.

In Pennsylvania, under a statute not unlike the one now before us, the Supreme Court of that State seems to have held that the pecuniary damages to be assessed in the case of the loss of a minor son of the plaintiff's was to be estimated by the value of his services during his minority, together with the actual expenses of his care while suffering from the injury before his death, and the funeral expenses incurred.

And in a case where a widow brought her action for the death of her husband, the same court held that although the jury might be charged that 'much is left, and much always must be left to your sound discretion,' it was because this was but an addition to the instruction that 'what the plaintiff had lost in a pecuniary point of view by the death of her husband, namely, a reasonable support and subsistence for herself,' was the rule to be observed.

The courts of Illinois have also examined the statute.

In Chicago and Rock Island Railroad Company v. Morris, there was no averment in the declaration of any facts showing a pecuniary loss. The court held, that as no other loss could be shown, the declaration should have alleged facts showing it.

2. The court erred in refusing to charge, as requested by the second prayer, that the plaintiff could recover only nominal damages until he had shown that the decedent's next of kin had some legal interest in his life, and that, by his death, they had been deprived of something to which they had a legal right.

A 'compensation with reference to the pecuniary injuries resulting from such death,' is within the discretion of the jury; but not a compensation for the affliction the death occasions, nor for the possibility that the deceased might, if he had lived, make presents to the relatives. If it had been shown that his next of kin were paupers, and he bound to support them, and that he could, and would do so from his earnings, and that his death deprived them of this support, and had this been pleaded, the jury would have had something upon which to exercise their judgment in estimating a pecuniary loss. But no such thing was either alleged or shown. No one of his next of kin was alleged or shown to be dependent upon him.

As a matter of fact, it is plain that had the defendant lived and added to his property and then died unmarried, the whole would have gone to the father, not to the other relatives.

3. The court erred in refusing to charge, that so far as the next of kin of the testator inherited from him a greater pecuniary benefit than the maximum which they could recover, they cannot have sustained pecuniary injury by his death.

The ground upon which the recovery must be had, is pecuniary injury to the next of kin, occasioned by his death. If his death necessarily and directly involved no pecuniary loss, and it did directly put money in their pocket, or that of any of them, they, or such of them, have sustained no pecuniary injury.

4. The court erred in refusing to charge as requested in regard to the cause of the death and its effect in discharging the Illinois Central road.

If the jury believed that the death was occasioned solely by the carelessness or default of the company in charge of the express train,-the Michigan Company,-and that the defendants had no control over them, the very fact would preclude the idea of any negligence or carelessness of the defendant. Yet, by the refusal to charge as asked, the jury were left, notwithstanding such their belief, to find a verdict against the defendant for a negligence of which its servants were not guilty.

If the Michigan Company's servants in charge of the express train were guilty of the entire fault of causing the collision, their negligence was a gross one, and the Illinois Central Company's servants were innocent of any actual or permissive wrong; they violated no duty to the deceased. The company was not a warrantor of the lives of passengers against negligent or wilful acts wrongfully committed by another.

As to the charge actually given.

It was directly calculated to withdraw the provisions of the act from the jury's consideration, and to leave them at liberty to assess damages arbitrarily, in the nature of punitive damages for the killing of the deceased, and irrespectively of any pecuniary injury to his next of kin.

It in effect instructed the jury that the father and brothers and sisters of an unmarried man of thirty-five years of age-one whose death, supposing him to reach the ordinary age of 'threescore years and ten,' was still thirty-five years distant would be his next of kin at his death; a presumption strongly against probabilities; and that they thus had a pecuniary interest in his further accumulations, and his prospective increase of wealth.

It invited the jury into a speculation as to whether he would or would not increase his means, would or would not marry, and would or would not have and leave issue; in short, into a speculation resting on uncertainties compounded with uncertainties, and probabilities not depending upon any facts before them; and about which neither sense nor science could form any conclusion whatever. How far less precise and scientific is this than the view of the courts of New York, which have held that a supposed interest in the savings which a mother might by her exertions make to the increase of her husband's estate, was not an element in assessing the pecuniary injuries sustained by her children in her death!

Mr. Lincoln Clark, contra, for the executor:

By the law as it was before the statute was passed, injury to the person might be compensated in damages if it was less than fatal: if death resulted, no action for damages would lie. There was a remedy for the lesser evil, but none for the greater. The object of the statute clearly was to declare that a provision of law so unreasonable should no longer exist. The statute embraces no new idea or theory in reference to damages. It only extends the right of action for the purpose of securing compensation for the same kind of injuries, and imposing penalties for the same character of negligence; and to this all the provisions of the statute look.

Opposite counsel plant themselves upon this provision in the second section, 'And in every such action the jury may give such damages as they shall deem a fair and just compensation with reference to the pecuniary injuries resulting from such death to the wife and next of kin, &c.' But if the action were at common law for injuries to the person, would not the rule as to damages be precisely the same? If it would, then the statute introduces no new rule, and damages would be given in the case of death upon the same principle, and for the same reasons as in case of injuries to the person only. But it has never been pretended in any case, nor is it in this, that had the deceased been injured to any extent short of his life, pecuniary damages might not have been adjudged to him, though he was a man of wealth and leisure, and not dependent even upon the improvement of his estate for the necessaries or the luxuries of life. It would not be said that he had suffered no pecuniary injury because of no such dependence.

The statute gives damages to the next of kin. What damages? Damages of the same kind and for the same reasons as in case of injury to the person. Damages not dependent upon the necessities of the individual, but damages made up of all the facts and circumstances which would naturally tend to prevent the accumulation of his estate, and deprive the individual of the means of doing better for his next of kin than otherwise he might do, and in presumption of law would do.

Opposite counsel took below the distinction, in the charges which they asked the court to give, between substantial and nominal damages. The language of the act is, 'in every such case the jury may give such damages as they shall deem a fair and just compensation.' Is the court to presume that mere nominal damages would, in any case, be a fair and just compensation, in so far that it might, as a matter of law, instruct the jury that they could give no more? If not, then the jury are the judges as to what a fair and just compensation is.

Can it be inferred from the language of the act that the case is destitute of merits because the next of kin have no legal claim for support? If this were so, then the children of a father killed could not have the benefit of the action if they had passed their majority and his guardianship and tutelage; and especially if they had separate estates, and were better able to support themselves than the father was to support them; for, in such a case there would be no legal claim for support. The next of kin is a comprehensive term, and must often include those who have no claim for support, and stand in distant relationship to the individual.

We thus infer that a recovery is not founded upon the idea of a legal claim for support, by showing that the action given by the statute is of the same nature as that given by the common law for mere injuries to the person, and is to be governed by the same reasons; that pecuniary injuries result in both cases in kind, though they may not in degree. And whether the damages recoverable go to those who have a claim for support makes no difference. Those having no claim may be as palpably injured as those who have.

But the statute upon which the action is based has received a construction by the Supreme Court of Illinois. In the City of Chicago v. Major, the death was of a child four years of age, and the objection to a recovery was substantially the same as in this case, to wit, that the verdict of the jury must be for the present pecuniary loss, and that as the child left no widow nor next of kin who were directly injured by the death, in a pecuniary point of view, therefore no recovery could be had. But such was not the view taken by the court.

In a New York case, Oldfield v. The New York and Harlem Railroad Company, the death was of a girl twelve years of age. The court refused to grant a nonsuit on the ground that there was no special damage.

The proposition of the plaintiffs in error, that 'no recovery can be had in this case because the plaintiffs, or those for whom the action is brought, gain more by the death than the maximum of damages which can be recovered,' assumes what is untrue in fact. None of the beneficiaries of this action received anything by the death, except the father, who was the plaintiff and sole legatee.

But can it be supposed that the legislature designed to place the right to recover damages upon so uncertain a condition? A man is killed in a railroad collision; he has property; he leaves children; by his will he leaves all his property to others. According to the argument, the children may have damages as for pecuniary injuries, because by the death they suffer pecuniary injury; that is to say, the man killed has, by the death, been deprived of the power to direct that his property should go to his children; but if he dies without a will, so that his property goes in the regular course of descent, or if having made a will, he bequeaths his property to his children, no recovery can be had, because by the death they have been benefited beyond the maximum of damages recoverable; that is to say, if the property descending or bequeathed is greater than that maximum. To this result the argument leads.

But the right to recover can be placed upon no such fortuitous circumstances. The presumption of law is, that a man's next of kin are benefited by his life; that he can do better for them alive than dead; that his gains will accrue to them. These may be in greater or less degree; they may be none at all. However these things may be, the facts will speak for themselves, and produce their proper effects on the trial.

In Pym v. The Great Northern Railway Company, the plaintiff's husband was killed. He was in the enjoyment of a life estate in land yielding an annual income of 3864. Upon his death the estate passed under the entail to the eldest son, subject to a charge of 1000 per annum to the plaintiff (the wife), and  800 a year to the children. The deceased also left personal property to the amount of 3390, which was divided between the widow and the children. Now it may be that the widow and children derived a greater benefit by the death than they would by the life of the husband and the father. By the death they came to the enjoyment of ascertained amounts; but the jury gave damages in the sum of 13,000, and that, too, although the deceased was of no profession or business, and had no income or property other than that already mentioned. Upon what principle were such damages awarded? Clearly upon the principle that had the father lived he might have used his income for the benefit of his family, though it would have been in his power not to do it. Had he lived and thus prevented his property from going to the entail, he could have done better for his family than was done in the event of his death. And this is the presumption in every case, subject to the fullest inquiry as to the facts. Had Barron lived, his next of kin might have realized by his life more than they did by his death; and this, no doubt, was the view which the jury took of the case under the instructions of the court. Was it wrong?

The rule of the statute which gives damages for the value of the life lost, may be regarded as loose and indefinite. But the rule as to other injuries is equally loose and indefinite, as in the case of defamation of character, assault and battery of the person, breach of promise of marriage contract; and yet juries find no difficulty in awarding damages, and no doubt the injury and damages will be found to vary according to the dignity, character, and position of the person.

In The Pennsylvania Railroad Company v. McCloskey, the court say:

'The damages must necessarily be measured by the value of the life lost, and not by the pecuniary loss which the representatives shall have thereby sustained. The sanction of the law lies in the duty of compensation for the value of the life destroyed, measured according to its own merits, and not according to the necessities of the kindred.'

The Pennsylvania statute does not essentially differ from that of Illinois.

In Dickins v. The New York Central Railroad Company, the court say:

'An action can be maintained by the personal representatives of a deceased person, whose death has been wrongfully caused by the defendant, though the deceased left no husband or wife or next of kin surviving who could ever have any legal claim upon such person if living, for services or support.'

As to the proposition of the plaintiff in error, that 'no recovery can be had if the colliding train was the most or chiefly to blame,' little need be said.'

The contract on the part of the deceased with the Illinois Central road, the defendant below. They owed him the duty of safe conduct; they had a direct responsibility to him, and in this case no doubt exclusive; and that responsibility they cannot avoid by leasing their road, or granting a license to another corporation to use it. It has been repeatedly decided that a railroad corporation can not avoid their responsibilities by leasing their road.

Mr. Justice NELSON delivered the opinion of the court.

There are only two questions raised in the course of the trial in the court below that it is material to notice.

It was insisted on the trial, in behalf of the defendants, that the express train was wholly in fault, and responsible for the injury. But the court ruled, that, considering the facts to be as claimed, still the defendants were liable; and this presents the first question in the case.

It will be observed the defendants owned the road upon which they were running the car in which the deceased was a passenger at the time of the collision, and that the train in fault was running on the same same road with their permission.

The question is not whether the Michigan Company is responsible, but whether the defendants, by giving to that company the privilege of using the road, have thereby, in the given case, relieved themselves from responsibility? The question has been settled, and we think rightly, in the courts of Illinois holding the owner of the road liable. The same principle has been affirmed in other States.

The second question is, as to the proper measure of damages.

The only direction on this subject in the statute that the jury may give such damages as they shall deem a fair and just compensation, regard being had to the pecuniary injuries resulting from the death to the wife or next of kin, not to exceed five thousand dollars.

The first section gives the action against the company for the wrongful act, if death happens, in cases where, if the deceased had survived, a suit might have been maintained by him. The second restricts the damages in respect both to the principles which are to govern the jury, and the amount. They are confined to the pecuniary injuries resulting to the wife and next of kin, whereas if the deceased had survived, a wider range of inquiry would have been admitted. It would have embraced personal suffering as well as pecuniary loss, and there would have been no fixed limitation as to the amount.

The damages in these cases, whether the suit is in the name of the injured party, or, in case of his death, under the statute, by the legal representative, must depend very much on the good sense and sound judgment of the jury upon all the facts and circumstances of the particular case. If the suit is brought by the party, there can be no fixed measure of compensation for the pain and anguish of body and mind, nor for the loss of time and care in business, or the permanent injury to health and body. So when the suit is brought by the representative, the pecuniary injury resulting from the death to the next of kin is equally uncertain and indefinite. If the deceased had lived, they may not have been benefited, and if not, then no pecuniary injury could have resulted to them from his death. But the statute in respect to this measure of damages seems to have been enacted upon the idea that, as a general fact, the personal assets of the deceased would take the direction given them by the law, and hence the amount recovered is to be distributed to the wife and next of kin in the proportion provided for in the distribution of personal property left by a person dying intestate. If the person injured had survived and recovered, he would have added so much to his personal estate, which the law, on his death, if intestate, would have passed to his wife and next of kin; in case of his death by the injury the equivalent is given by a suit in the name of his representative.

There is difficulty in either case in getting at the pecuniary loss with precision or accuracy, more difficulty in the latter than in the former, but differing only in degree, and in both cases the result must be left to turn mainly upon the sound sense and deliberate judgment of the jury.

It has been suggested frequently in cases under these acts, for they are found in several of the States, and the suggestion is very much urged in this case, that the widow and next of kin are not entitled to recover any damages unless it be shown they had a legal claim on the deceased, if he had survived, for support. The two sections of the act taken together clearly negative any such construction, as a suit is given against the wrong-doer in every case by the representative for the benefit of the widow and next of kin, where, if death had not ensued, the injured party could have maintained the suit. The only relation mentioned by the statute to the deceased essential to the maintenance of this suit, is that of widow or next of kin; to say, they must have a legal claim on him for support, would be an interpolation in the statute changing the fair import of its terms, and hence not warranted. This construction, we believe, has been rejected by every court before which the question has been presented. These cases have frequently been before the courts of Illinois, and the exposition of the act given by the learned judge in the present case is substantially in conformity with those case.

JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.

JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.


text: Talk:Railroad Company v. Barron/Opinion of the Court


text:
Hadden v. The Collector

On the 14th of July, 1862, Congress passed 'an act increasing temporarily the duties on imports and for other purposes.' The 14th section was as follows:

'And be it further enacted, That from and after the day and year aforesaid [August 1st, 1862], there shall be levied, collected, and paid on all goods, wares, and merchandise of the growth or produce of ''countries beyond the Cape of Good Hope, when imported from places this side of the Cape of Good Hope, a duty of ten per cent. ad valorem, and in addition to the duties imposed on any such articles when imported directly from the place or places of their growth or production''.'

With this act in force the plaintiffs imported into New York from Liverpool several packages of raw silk, the growth or produce of Persia and China, upon which the ten per cent. duty was exacted. This duty was paid under protest, and a case being agreed on, the present action was brought in the Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York against the collector to recover back the amount.

The matter was the proper interpretation of the above section of the act of Congress, previously to the date of which it is admitted that the goods described were free of duty.

The following section of the act of 3d of March, 1863, was introduced into the argument as throwing light, perhaps, on the former:

'SEC. 2. And be it further enacted, That section fourteen of an act entitled 'An act increasing temporarily the duties on imports, and for other purposes,' approved July fourteenth, eighteen hundred and sixty-two, be, and the same hereby is modified, so as to allow cotton, and raw silk as reeled from the cocoon, of the growth or produce of countries beyond the Cape of Good Hope, to be exempt from any additional duty when imported from places this side of the Cape of Good Hope, for two years from and after the passage of this act.'

The questions were:

1. Whether the 14th section of the act of July, 1862, was applicable to goods hitherto free of duty; and

2. Whether this statute is reconcilable with the Constitution of the United States, which requires that 'all duties, imposts, and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.'

The court gave judgment for the defendant, and the plaintiffs thereupon brought the case here on error.

Messrs. Slosson and Hutchins, for the plaintiffs in error.

Mr. Stanbery, A. G., and Mr. Ashton, Assistant A. G., contra.

Mr. Justice FIELD delivered the opinion of the court.

title: Hadden v. The Collector


text: Talk:Hadden v. The Collector

title: Talk:Hadden v. The Collector


text:
Hadden v. The Collector/Opinion of the Court

This case arises upon the fourteenth section of the act of Congress of July 14th, 1862, entitled 'An act increasing temporarily the duties on imports, and for other purposes.' That section provides that after the first day of August, 1862, 'there shall be levied, collected, and paid on all goods, wares, and merchandise of the growth or produce of countries beyond the Cape of Good Hope, when imported from places this side of the Cape of Good Hope, a duty of ten per cent. ad valorem, and in addition to the duties imposed on any such articles when imported directly from the place or places of their growth or production.'

Soon after the passage of this act the plaintiffs made several importations into the port of New York from Liverpool, England, of packages of raw silk, the product of Persia and China, upon which the ten per cent. duty was exacted. This duty was paid under protest, and the present action was brought against the collector to recover back the amount.

At the time the act was passed raw silk was not subject to any duty, and it was contended by the plaintiffs in the court below, and is contended by them here, that the fourteenth section only applied to such articles, the growth and product of countries beyond the Cape of Good Hope, as were then liable to duty, and did not embrace articles upon which no duty was imposed.

In support of this construction reference is made to the language of other sections of the act, where a duty is laid upon articles previously exempt; to the title of the act; and to the supposed policy of the government.

It is true that some of the other sections, when providing for a duty upon articles previously exempt, express the intention of the legislature in this respect in language free from doubt. This fact, however, does not necessarily control the construction of a distinct and independent section. The fourteenth section relates to articles different from those covered by the other sections, and necessarily differs from them in its language, as it makes a discrimination, which they do not, in the duty imposed, according to the place from which the articles are exported.

The title of an act furnishes little aid in the construction of its provisions. Originally in the English courts the title was held to be no part of the act;-'no more,' says Lord Holt, 'than the title of a book is part of the book.' It was generally framed by the clerk of the House of Parliament, where the act originated, and was intended only as a means of convenient reference. At the present day the title constitutes a part of the act, but it is still considered as only a formal part; it cannot be used to extend or to restrain any positive provisions contained in the body of the act. It is only when the meaning of these is doubtful that resort may be had to the title, and even then it has little weight. It is seldom the subject of special consideration by the legislature.

These observations apply with special force to acts of Congress. Every one who has had occasion to examine them has found the most incongruous provisions, having no reference to the matter specified in the title. Thus the law regulating appeals in Mexican land cases to the District Courts of the United States from the board of commissioners, created under the act of March 3d, 1851, is found in an act entitled 'An act making appropriations for the civil and diplomatic expenses of the government for the year ending June 30th, 1853, and for other purposes.' The law declaring that in the courts of the United States there shall be no exclusion of any witness on account of color, nor in civil actions when he is a party to or interested in the issue tried, is contained in a proviso to a section in the appropriation act of 1864, the section itself directing an appropriation for detecting and punishing the counterfeiting of the securities and coin of the United States.

During the past session, whilst a bill was pending before Congress entitled 'A bill granting the right of way to ditch and canal owners over the public lands, and for other purposes,' all after the enacting clause was stricken out, and provisions establishing a complete system for the possession and sale of interests in mines were substituted in its place. And thus the most important act in our legislation relating to the mining interests of the country stands on the statutebook under a title purporting that the act grants a right of way to ditch and canal owners over the public lands, and for other purposes. The words 'for other purposes,' frequently added to the title in acts of Congress, are considered as covering every possible subject of legislation.

The supposed policy of the government is stated to be the encouragement of manufactures by imposing restrictions on goods manufactured in whole or in part abroad, and hence it is argued that it was against such policy to impose duties on the raw material.

Little weight can be given to considerations of this character in the construction of the act. The encouragement of manufactures does not appear to have been the object of the act; but, on the contrary, its object was manifestly to increase the revenues of the country, and it may well have been supposed by the law-makers that in many cases the raw material could bear a duty without decreasing the importation, or injuriously affecting the manufacturing interests.

What is termed the policy of the government with reference to any particular legislation is generally a very uncertain thing, upon which all sorts of opinions, each variant from the other, may be formed by different persons. It is a ground much too unstable upon which to rest the judgment of the court in the interpretation of statutes.

Looking to the section by itself, we find no little difficulty in its construction. The first clause declares that upon all goods, wares, and merchandise, the growth or product of countries beyond the Cape of Good Hope, when imported from places this side of the Cape, a duty of ten per cent. ad valorem shall be levied, and the latter clause does not qualify this general language so as to exclude from it the articles previously exempt. It only provides, as we construe it, that the duty laid by the first clause shall be in addition to existing duties imposed on such articles when imported directly from their places of growth or production; in other words, that such articles as already pay a duty when imported directly from these places shall pay a further duty if imported from places this side of the Cape; its object being to increase the duty upon the articles when not imported directly from their places of growth or production. The words 'any such articles' do not mean all the articles embraced in the first clause, but only such of them as were already subject to duty.

The amendatory act of March 3d, 1863, passed a few months afterwards, indicates very clearly the understanding of Congress that the ten per cent. was imposed as an additional duty, though in fact raw silk, as already stated, was at the time exempt. Its language is that the fourteenth section shall be modified so as to allow 'cotton and raw silk, as reeled from the cocoon, to be exempt from any additional duty when imported from places this side of the Cape of Good Hope for two years' from the passage of the act.

The objection to the statute that it makes a discrimination in favor of the ports of the Pacific, and thus contravenes that clause of the Constitution which requires that 'all duties, imposts, and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States,' is not tenable. The ground of the objection is that with reference to the Atlantic ports, goods which are the growth or product of Persia or China, are from countries beyond the Cape of Good Hope, and are thus chargeable with duty, but with reference to the Pacific ports, they are from countries this side of the Cape, and thus not within the terms of the statute.

The answer to the objection is obvious and conclusive. The terms 'beyond the Cape of Good Hope' are employed as descriptive of the locality of certain countries, not their relative position with respect to ports of import. They are used to avoid the necessity of enumerating the countries which lie east of the Cape. 'Beyond the Cape' and 'east of the Cape' are often used in the acts of Congress as equivalent expressions. They indicate the locality of certain countries with reference to the position of the law-makers at the national capital. In a similar manner would the words 'beyond the Mississippi' be construed if found in an act of Congress. They would be held to refer to the country west of the Mississippi, which, with reference to the legislators at Washington, would lie beyond that river.

JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.


text: Talk:Hadden v. The Collector/Opinion of the Court


text:
Shelton v. The Collector

THIS case, which was brought up by a writ of error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Massachusetts, was submitted to the court below upon an agreed statement of facts, substantially as follows:

Shelton & Co.-the plaintiffs in error, who were also the plaintiffs below-imported a quantity of molasses from the island of Cuba into the port of Boston. At the time of the exportation from Cuba it was sound and sweet. Upon reaching Boston it was soured, having become so during the voyage. There was a material difference between the value of sweet and sour molasses both at the port of exportation and the port of importation,-sweet molasses being of the greater value. The molasses in question was entered at the full value of sweet molasses. The plaintiffs demanded to have the damage appraised and allowed in the computation of duties. The defendant caused the damaged to be appraised, but afterwards (under instructions from the Secretary of the Treasury) refused to allow them, and duties were exacted by the defendant, and paid by the plaintiffs, under protest, upon the full value of the molasses.

It was agreed that if the court should be of opinion that damage by souring during the voyage of importation was a damage on the voyage, within the meaning of the provision of the fifty-second section of the act of March 2d, 1799, judgment was to be entered for the plaintiffs-otherwise for the defendant.

Upon this agreement the court below gave judgment for the defendant, and this writ of error was prosecuted to reverse it.

The fifty-second section of the act of March 2d, 1799, above-mentioned, enacts:

'That all goods, wares, and merchandise of which entry shall have been made incomplete, or which shall have received damage during the voyage, to be ascertained by the proper officers of the port or district in which the said goods, &c., shall arrive, shall be conveyed to some warehouse or storehouse to be designated by the collector, in the parcels or packages containing the same, there to remain at the expense and risk of the owner or consignee, under the care of some proper officer, until the particulars, cost, or value, as the case may require, shall have been ascertained: Provided, that no allowance for the damage on any goods, wares, and merchandise that have been entered, and on which the duties have been paid or secured to be paid, and for which a permit has been granted to the owner or consignee thereof, shall be made, unless proof to ascertain such damage shall be lodged in the custom-house, &c., within ten days after the landing of such merchandise.'

As having a certain bearing on the subject, reference may be made also to the twenty-first section of an act of March 1, 1823, as follows:

'That before any goods, wares, or merchandise which may be taken from any wreck shall be admitted to an entry, the same shall be appraised in the maner prescribed in the sixteenth section of this act; and the same proceedings shall be ordered and executed in all cases where a reduction of duties shall be claimed on account of damage which any goods, wares, or merchandise shall have sustained in the course of the voyage; and in all cases where the owner, importer, consignee, or agent shall be dissatisfied with such appraisement, he shall be entitled to the privileges provided in the eighteenth section of this act.'

The manner of appraisement referred to as provided in the sixteenth section, and the privileges provided in the eighteenth section, were not material to the issue in this case.

Mr. Stanbery, A. G., and Mr. Ashton, Assistant A. G., for the collector:

Goods which have been completely entered, under whatever circumstances such entry has been made, are not entitled to any allowance for damage, from whatever cause, unless proof of such damage has been furnished within ten days after the landing of the goods, and other action had.

Without a statutory exception, the general law regulating entries of goods and assessments of duties would of course disallow such damage; and the exception claimed in this suit withholds, by express terms, its benefits where 'proof to ascertain such damage' has not been 'lodged in the custom-house' of the port 'within ten days after the landing of such merchandise.' Here is a condition precedent, which the case, by its omission to mention it, shows has not been fulfilled by the importer. The entry was regular and complete, and it follows that the entire fifty-second section is inapplicable, except as by its proviso it prohibits the allowance claimed.

But any provision of the act of 1799 favorable to the plaintiffs was repealed by the act of 1823.

The act of 1823 declares that 'no entry shall be admitted until after appraisement of goods taken from any wreck; and the same proceedings shall be ordered and executed in all cases where a reduction of duties shall be claimed on account of damage which any goods, wares, or merchandise shall have sustained in the course of the voyage.'

If, therefore, under section fifty-two of the act of 1799 the importers could have claimed the benefit of any appraisement of damages to their goods, 'sustained in the course of the voyage,' after they had procured them to be entered at the custom-house (with or without the lodgement therein of proof within ten days after landing), under the terms of this section, it is manifest they could not have the benefit of such an appraisement now, since the act of 1823 thus expressly prohibits the admission of the very entry they made. Therefore, if the importers chose to forego this prohibition of entry, by entering the goods according to invoice, they must submit to the consequences of their voluntary action.

Whenever, in fact, the invoice has been the basis of an entry at the custom-house, complete or incomplete, or whenever an entry has been made with a specific valuation, there is no power to reduce the corresponding assessment of duties.

As an importer is not, in any case of damage in the course of the voyage, imperfect data, wreck, &c., obliged to make entry before appraisement, under the statutes cited, the reason of the rule binding him to abide his entry is palpable.

No opposite counsel appeared.

Mr. Justice SWAYNE delivered the opinion of the court.

title: Shelton v. The Collector


text: Talk:Shelton v. The Collector

title: Talk:Shelton v. The Collector


text:
Shelton v. The Collector/Opinion of the Court

The question presented for our determination in this case is a purely statutory one, and it must be decided by the light of the laws of Congress, which relate to the subject.

The 52d section of the act of March 2d, 1799, declares that goods, of which an incomplete entry has been made, or which shall have received damage during the voyage, to be ascertained by the proper officers, shall be conveyed in the parcels or packages containing them to some warehouse, to be designated by the collector, and that they shall remain there at the expense of the owner or consignee, under the care of some proper officer, 'until the particulars, cost, or value, as the case may be, shall be ascertained.' The proceedings touching the appraisement, in case of damage during the voyage, are particularly prescribed. The proper deduction is also provided for, whether the goods are chargeable with a duty ad valorem, or a specific duty. The section concludes with a proviso, that no allowance shall be made for the damage on any goods and merchandise which have been entered, and on which the duties have been paid, or secured to be paid, and for which a permit has been granted, unless the proof to ascertain the damage shall be lodged in the custom-house within ten days after the merchandise was landed.

The act of the 3d of March, 1823, provides that, before goods taken from a wreck shall be entered, they shall be appraised in the manner prescribed by the 16th section of the act, and that the same proceedings shall be had, in all cases, where a reduction of duties is claimed on account of the damage which any goods may have sustained in the course of a voyage.

It provides further, that in all cases, when the owner or consignee is dissatisfied with the appraisement, he may avail himself of the privileges given by the 18th section of the act.

It is not necessary to advert to the 16th and 18th sections more particularly. They embrace details in nowise material to the question under consideration. In so far as they are inconsistent with the mode of ascertaining the damage to the goods prescribed by the act of 1799, the former act must yield to the latter, and it is to that extent repealed. But this in no wise affects the limitation of the time, fixed by the act of 1799, within which the proof of the damage must be lodged in the custom-house.

The plaintiffs were clearly not entitled to recover, because it did not appear that this requirement of that act had been complied with. It was neither agreed nor made to appear aliunde that any proof was filed within the ten days.

There is another objection, which is equally conclusive. The statute of 1823 requires the damage to be ascertained before the goods are entered at the custom-house. This order of proceeding was attempted to be invested by the plaintiffs. They entered the molasses regularly at the in voice price, and then insisted upon an appraisement of the damage, and a corresponding reduction of the duties, and the latter being refused, paid the full amount under protest. The protest was unavailing. The claim for an appraisement, and for the consequent reduction of the duties, came too late. The door to relief was then closed, and no power but the legislature could reopen it. The right was one which the importers might assert or waive at their option. The entry of the goods was such a waiver, and it was final. There was no power in the executive department of the government competent to restore it. We place our decision upon two grounds:

One-that the requisite proof was not lodged in the custom-house within the time prescribed by the act of 1799.

The other-that the molasses was completely entered before the proceedings authorized by the act of 1823 were demanded and taken.

AFFIRMED.


text: Talk:Shelton v. The Collector/Opinion of the Court


text:
Stanley v. Colt

ERROR to the Circuit Court for the District of Connecticut, the case being this:

From the year 1702 or earlier, and down to the year 1818, and afterwards, with some unimportant alterations, there existed and was in force in Connecticut a statute thus:

'That all such lands, tenements, hereditaments, and other estates, that either formerly have been, or hereafter shall be, given and granted, either by the General Assembly of this Colony or by any town, village, or particular person or persons, for the maintenance of the ministry of the Gospel in any part of this Colony, or schools of learning, or for the relief of poor people, or for any other public and charitable use, shall forever remain and be continued to the use or uses to which such lands, tenements, hereditaments, or other estates, have been, or shall be, given and granted, according to the true intent and meaning of the grantors, and to no other use whatsoever; and also be exempted out of the general lists of estates, and free from the payment of rates.'

This act being thus in force, William Stanley, of Hartford, Connecticut, in October, 1786, made his will in the material parts as follows:

'Imprimis. I give and bequeath unto the Second Church of Christ, in Hartford, such sum, to be paid out of the profits or rents of my real estate as hereafter mentioned, as shall be necessary to purchase a silver tankard of the same weight and dimensions, as near as conveniently may be, of that one formerly given said church by Mr. John Ellery, deceased; the same to be procured by my trustees, hereafter named, and presented to the officers of said church, to be kept forever for the use and benefit of said church, and my said trustees are to cause my name, coat of arms, the time of my death and my age thereon to be engraved.

'Item. I give and devise unto my niece, Elizabeth Whitman, one piece of land, &c., also one other piece of land lying, &c., and is part of the farm that formerly belonged unto my honored father, Colonel Nathaniel Stanley, deceased, and lies in the southeast corner of said farm, and butts on a highway, unto the said Elizabeth, and to her heirs and assigns forever, provided she shall not make any claim upon my estate for any services done for me.

'Item. I do also give and devise unto may sister Abigail the use and improvement of all my real estate (except that part thereof given unto her daughter Elizabeth) during her natural life, with this reserve, that she shall not cut any of the trees growing in that lot called Rocky Hill lot.

'Item. After the decease of my said sister, Abigail Whitman, I give and devise the whole of my real estate, of every kind and description, except which is hereinbefore given unto my niece, Elizabeth Whitman, unto the Second or South Ecclesiastical Society, in the town of Hartford, to be and remain to the use and benefit of said Second or South Society and their successors forever; PROVIDED that said real estate be not ever hereafter sold or disposed of, but the same be leased or left, and the annual rents or profits thereof applied, to the use and benefit of said Society, and the letting, leasing, and managing of said estate to be under the management and direction of certain trustees hereafter named by me, and their successors to be appointed in manner as hereafter directed. And it is my will that the first rents, profits, or avails issuing from said real estate shall, by my trustees after it comes to their possession, be applied to the purchasing of the aforesaid tankard. And it is my will that so much of the rents, profits, or avails next issuing out of my real estate, my said trustees shall reserve in their own hands as shall be sufficient to purchase and pay for the one-half part of the price of a proper bell for the meeting-house in said Second Society, of the same weight and dimensions of that in the North Meeting-House, in said town of Hartford, and be applied by my said trustees for that purpose; provided that the other part be procured by subscription or otherwise without taxing the inhabitants of said society; and in case said Second Society shall ever hereafter be divided, it is my will that my said real estate be not divided, but remain entire and forever to the said Second Society, and such part of said society as shall hereafter secede or be divided therefrom are hereby excluded from all the use and benefit of my said estate so devised as aforesaid to said Second Society.

'And for the best management and direction of my said real estate I do hereby appoint my friends, W. Ellery, &c., trustees to superintend, direct, and manage said real estate for the use and benefit of said Second Society in manner as above directed, and unto them, my trustees, I do give authority and power to nominate their successors to said trust, which is to be done in the manner and form following, viz.: That immediately after my decease, they shall nominate and appoint some meet person or persons, as occasion may require, into said trust and office; so be it that at no time more than three persons shall act in said trust or office or belong thereto at the same time. And all persons successors hereafter to said trust and office shall at all times in future have like power to superintend, direct, and manage said estate for said society, and in like manner to nominate and appoint their successors in said trust and office, and to perpetuate said trust for the benefit and use of said society as occasion may from time to time require. And the aforesaid real estate or any part thereof shall not be rented or let for a longer term or lease than thirty years before the expiration of the same, and said trustees and their successors shall have full power to let and lease said estate, and to do all other legal acts for the well ordering and management of said estate under the limitation and restrictions as herein is before expressed.'

The ecclesiastical society named in the devise above quoted was established by authority of the State of Connecticut for the support of the Gospel ministry and the maintenance of public worship, and with power, for that purpose, to hold real estate.

After the death of Stanley and his sister Abigail, who had the life-estate, and whose death occurred prior to the year 1800, it took possession of the premises, and down to 1852 the society and trustees managed them in the manner directed in the will, appropriating the income from time to time to the purposes of the society. During the whole time the premises were untaxed, the only ground for the exemption being the provision in the act of 1702, quoted on p. 120. In the year 1852 the legislature of Connecticut, upon the application of the society and of the trustees, passed a resolution reciting a memorial by the church and trustees, showing the will, possession of the land, &c.

'Also showing that the said land has on it a great number of buildings, owned by the tenants, built of wood, and in a decayed state; that the land on which they stand has, by the lapse of about three-fourths of a century, become valuable, some of which is in the central part of the city of Hartford, and too valuable to be improved profitably in any other way than by the erection on them of permanent brick or stone blocks of buildings; that the lessees cannot safely erect such buildings, because of the uncertainty of their tenure, and because they would thereby place themselves in the power of the owners, and that the owners have not the means, and could not lawfully contract debts for the purpose of building; that other parts of the estate are subject to other embarrassments arising from the restrictions of the will, so that said property has become unproductive, and the income greatly reduced, and the object of the testator in devising the property to the society frustrated; that those embarrassments, both to the owners and occupants, consequent on the restrictions in the will, are not likely to be removed, but will be increased by time, unless said land can be sold and conveyed in fee simple, and the proceeds suitably invested.

'And praying the Assembly to authorize a sale and conveyance of said land, under such guards and provisions as will secure the application of the proceeds according to the true intent and meaning of said will, as per petition on file.'

This legislative record thus proceeded:

'This Assembly having inquired into the facts stated in said memorial, find the same to be true; and do further find that the most valuable portion of said estate is situated in a central part of said city of Hartford, is covered with unsuitable wooden buildings, and it is for the interest of the people of said city that more useful and valuable buildings should be built thereon, and do grant the prayer thereof; and it is therefore

'Resolved, That the said trustees and their successors, together with D. F. Robinson, as agent, shall have power, and they are hereby authorized, to sell and convey the said lands in said memorial mentioned, and such parts or proportions thereof as may from time to time be advantageously sold, and to execute good and sufficient deeds thereof in fee simple, with or without covenants of seizin and warranty, on the part of said society, subject to liens or incumbrances, if any shall lie upon said property, &c. And the proceeds of such sales shall be, by the trustees and agent, invested in good and sufficient bonds and mortgages of real estate, of double the value of the amount invested; and the interest of said proceeds shall be paid over to the treasurer of said society, and shall be appropriated to the use of said society in the same manner, and subject to the same use, as the rents or income of said property are by said will required to be appropriated, and for no other uses or purposes whatever. And all mortgages or investments made as aforesaid from time to time, and whenever such loans or investments shall be shifted or changed, the securities shall be taken in the name of such trustees and their successors, and expressed to be for the use and benefit of said society, according to the will of William Stanley, deceased: Provided, however, That before any person or persons shall proceed to make sale of said lands, or any part thereof, he or they shall become bound, in a good and sufficient bond, to the judge of probate for the district of Hartford, conditioned for the faithful performance of the duty in the premises; and said trustees shall also give the like bonds for the faithful performance of their trust.'

The heirs at law of Stanley had no notice of any of these proceedings.

The trustees and agent accordingly, in August, 1852, by deed reciting the legislative proceeding, and purporting to be made in virtue of their said capacity of trustees and agent, and of the powers conferred by the act, sold and conveyed, with special warranty, to one Colt, 'all the right, title, and interest that said Second Ecclesiastical Society, &c., have or ought to have in or to the above-described tract of land,' one of the tracts devised.

Colt having entered into possession, the heirs at law of Stanley now brought ejectment against him for the premises. The court instructed the jury that on the case presented the defendant was entitled to their verdict; and judgment having gone accordingly, the case was now here on error.

Messrs. W. M. Evarts and C. E. Perkins, for the heirs at law:

The case is of general importance. A full argument will be allowed.

Three questions arise:

I. Had the society power under the will itself, to sell and convey this property to Colt without incurring a forfeiture?II. If it had not such power under the will, was it enabled so to do by the act of the legislature of 1852?

III. If the society had no power to convey from either source, what consequence results from its violation of the condition of the devise?

That the legal estate is in the church must, we suppose, be conceded. The devise is, in plain terms, to it in fee: 'I give and devise the whole of my ''estate. . . unto the Second or South Ecclesiastical Society''. . . to be and remain to the use and benefit of said Second or South Society and their successors forever.' No legal estate is given to the trustees. They are but to 'superintend, direct, and manage.' This is exactly what any mere agent of restricted powers would do in regard to any estate, of which confessedly the fee would be in his constituent. Mere directions to one person to superintend, direct, and even to manage, cannot carry to him the legal estate given in plain, appropriate, and even technical terms to another in fee; even assuming that it might do so, if the legal estate were left undisposed of;-which we do not admit. Inference cannot control direct expression. The trustees were to have no powers but what were necessary to the office of superintendence, direction, and management of an estate that was never to be 'divided,' but which was 'to remain entire and forever to the said Second Society.' The legal estate then was given to the church.

The heirs of Stanley say then:

I. The society, under the provisions of the will, could not sell without violating the condition upon which they held the property, and thus incurring a forfeiture of their title.

Both by the obvious intent of the testator and by the legal effect of the words used, this devise is of an estate upon condition subsequent, a breach of which destroys all right of the society in the property.

1. The will shows that the testator meant to deprive the society of the power to sell. He meant that this property should always remain in the hands of the society. He believed that the property would increase in value, and from a sure increasing fund would supply the society's increased wants, while if the land was sold and the money invested, the society would receive no larger amount a hundred years thereafter, than at that day. He also desired that he should be remembered in connection with this society forever. He had an obvious pride of family name and estate, and an attachment plainly to this particular Second or South Church. He desires his 'arms' and name to be put upon a sacramental tankard, 'to be kept forever.' He leaves to his niece a piece of land that belonged to his 'honored father, Colonel Nathaniel Stanley, deceased.' To his sister, he leaves for life another piece, 'but she shall not cut any of the trees.'

The bulk of the real estate he leaves in fee to the church, separating the real estate from all power to manage it, and giving neither to the devisee nor to the trustees a power to sell the estate; but, on the contrary, showing that he meant it should never be sold or disintegrated. He looks forward to the possibility of a division of the religious body, and provides against any division of his estate from even that cause; declaring that if the society should 'ever hereafter' be divided, his real estate left to the existing body should 'be not divided, but remain entire and forever to the said Second Society.'

The courts in Connecticut have held, that where land was devised to an ecclesiastical society, the intent of the donor is shown by that very act to be that it should not be sold.

The means adopted by the testator to accomplish this intent, are the most effectual that could be conceived for his purpose. He did not intrust the accomplishment of his object to the society, to the legislature, or even to courts of equity. He determined to make it the interest of the society and its members to use the gift as he directed, by causing a forfeiture to follow their misuse.

He used apt words to carry out this intention.

In construing wills, courts are governed by certain well-settled rules. One of these rules, the seventeenth in Mr. Jarman's series, is:

'Where a testator uses technical words, he is presumed to employ them in their legal sense, unless the context clearly indicates the contrary.'

The obligation of the rule is nowhere more recognized than in Connecticut, where in Gold v. Judson, the court say: 'We are bound to suppose the testator used language in its usual legal sense.'

The word Provided is a technical word: its meaning has been settled by innumerable decisions, and it has always been held that a devise to A., provided he should or should not perform certain acts, is a devise upon a condition subsequent, and the estate vests in A., subject to being divested if he does or does not perform the acts specified.

This is the rule in Connecticut.

In Wright v. Tuttle, Swift, J., says:

title: Stanley v. Colt


text: Talk:Stanley v. Colt

title: Talk:Stanley v. Colt