text:
Rogers v. Steamer St. Charles/Opinion of the Court

This is an appeal from a decree of the Circuit Court of the United States for the eastern district of the State of Louisiana, sitting in admiralty.

The libel was filed in the District Court to recover the value of a quantity of merchandise on board the schooner Ella, which was sunk in a collision with the steamer on Lake Borgne, some six or eight miles east of the light-ship in Pass Mary Ann, while at anchor on the night of the 5th February, 1853. The District Court rendered a decree charging the steamer with the loss.

On an appeal, the Circuit Court reversed the decree, and dismissed the libel, on the ground that the schooner was in fault in not having a light in the fore-rigging, or in any other conspicuous place on the vessel, to give notice of her position to the approaching steamer.

The night was dark and rainy, and the wind blowing fresh from north-northwest. A proper light had been hung in the fore-rigging early in the evening, and kept there till near the time of the collision, which happened about half-past eleven o'clock. One of the hands had taken the lamp down to wipe off the water that had collected upon the glass globe, so that it might shine brighter. While he was standing midships, wiping the lamp, he heard the approach of the steamer, and immediately placed it on the top of the cook-house. The collision soon after occurred. The fault lies in removing the lamp for a moment from the fore-rigging to midships. If it was not practicable to wipe it in the rigging, another light should have been placed there on its removal. The time of the removal may be, as happened in this case, the instant when the presence of the light was most needed to give warning to the vessel approaching. All the hands examined who were on board the steamer deny that they saw any light at the time on the schooner.

We agree, therefore, with the court below, that the schooner was in fault.

But it is insisted, on the part of the appellants, that the steamer was also in fault on account of her rate of speed at the time, regard being had to the darkness of the night and the character of the channel she was navigating. The schooner, on coming out of the Pass Mary Ann, towards evening met a strong head wind and swell of the lake, and after pursuing her course some four or five miles, anchored under Cat Island. There were several other vessels at anchor at the time in that vicinity.

Some of the witnesses state that the place is used as a harbor for schooners and other vessels navigating the lake in rough weather, as it is somewhat sheltered from the winds; and the number of vessels at anchor in the neighborhood, at the time of the collision, would seem to confirm this statement, and there is no evidence in the case to the contrary.

There is conflicting evidence on a point made by the appellant, that the steamer was out of the direct and usual course of steamers from Pass Mary Ann to Mobile. The weight of it is, that this course was a mile and a half or two miles north of the place where the schooner lay. But we do not attach much influence to this fact, as in the open lake there was no very fixed track of these vessels within the limit mentioned.

There is also some little discrepancy of the witnesses as to the darkness of the night. But the clear weight of it is, that at the time of the collision it was very dark and rainy, and the wind blowing fresh.

The witnesses on the part of the steamer are very explicit on this part of the case. The pilot says, the night was very dark, and drizzling rain. The captain, that the night was dark and cloudy, and the wind blowing briskly. The engineer, that the night was so dark, a vessel of the size of the schooner could not be seen at all till upon her, without a light; and yet he says there was nothing in the weather to prevent her running at her usual speed.

The steamer was going, at the time of the collision, at the rate of from nine to ten miles an hour. The pilot says, at her usual rate of speed, or at the rate of eight or nine knots. The engineer, not exceeding the usual rate of speed, which, it appears, averages about ten miles. The mate states, that the speed at the time was between ten and eleven miles.

Now, considering the darkness of the night and state of the weather, and that the steamer was navigating a channel where she was accustomed to meet sailing vessels engaged in the coasting trade between Mobile and New Orleans and the intermediate ports, we cannot resist the conclusion that the rate of speed above stated was too great for prudent and safe navigation; and this, whether we regard the security of the passengers on board of her, or the reasonable protection of other vessels navigating the same channel; and especially under the circumstances of this case, in which she was bound to know that the place where this schooner lay was a place to which vessels in rough and unpropitious weather, navigating this channel, were accustomed to resort for safety. The case presented is much stronger against the steamer than that of casually meeting the schooner in the open waters of the lake. She was at anchor with other vessels in an accustomed place of security and protection against adverse winds and weather, familiar to all persons engaged in navigating these waters. The place and weather, therefore, should have admonished the steamer to extreme care and caution, and it is, perhaps, not too much to say, should have led to the adoption of a course that would have avoided the locality altogether. The weight of the evidence is, even if she had pursued the most direct course from Pass Mary Ann to Mobile, it would have had this effect: she would have passed north of this cluster of vessels anchored under the shelter of the island.

Neither is it at all improbable, if the speed of the steamer had been slackened, and she had been moving at a reduced rate, with the care and caution required by the state of the weather, that she would have seen the light on the schooner in time to have avoided her. The proof is full that there was a light on board from the time she cast anchor till the happening of the disaster. But, at the critical moment, it was in the hand of the seaman at midships, instead of at a conspicuous place in the rigging. The light must have been in some degree visible, as all the sails of the vessel were furled, and was placed on the top of the cook-house as soon as the wet and moisture were wiped from the glass.

The admiralty in England have repeatedly condemned vessels holding a rate of speed in a dark night, under circumstances like the present, and so did this court in the case of the steamer New Jersey, (10 How., 568.) The Rose, 2 Wm. Rob., 1; The Virgil, Ib., 201.

It has been urged, on behalf of the steamer, that she carried the mail, and that a given rate of speed was necessary in order to fulfil her contract with the Government.

This defence has been urged in similar and analogous cases in England, but has been disregarded, and indeed must be, unless we regard the interest and convenience of the arrival of an early mail more important than the reasonable protection of the lives and property of our citizens.

Having arrived at the conclusion that the steamer was in fault, the case is one for the apportionment of the loss.

The decree must therefore be reversed, and the case remitted to the court below, for the purpose of carrying this apportionment into effect.

POOLEY, NICOLL, & Co.,

v.

THE STEAMER ST. CHARLES.

The decree of the court below is reversed, for the reasons given in the case of E. G. Rogers & Co. v. the same steamer, and remitted to the court for an apportionment of the loss.

v.

THE STEAMER ST. CHARLES.

The appeal in this case is dismissed for want of jurisdiction; the decree in the court below being for a sum less than $2,000.

JOHN HURLEY & Co.

v.

THE STEAMER ST. CHARLES.

The appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction; the decree of the court below being for a sum less than $2,000.

This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the eastern district of Louisiana, and was argued by counsel. On consideration whereof, it is the opinion of this court that the appeals of Brooks & Randolph, and Hurley & Co., should be dismissed for the want of jurisdiction, on the ground that the amount in controversy in each of the said cases is less than $2,000; and it is also the opinion of this court that the steamer St. Charles was in fault, and that the decree of the said Circuit Court in the cases of E. G. Rogers & Co., and Pooley, Nicoll, & Co., should be reversed, and the cause remanded for an apportionment of the loss on these two appeals. Whereupon, it is now here ordered, adjudged, and decreed, by this court, that the appeals of Brooks & Randolph, and of Hurley & Co., be and the same are hereby dismissed for the want of jurisdiction; and that the decree of the said Circuit Court in the cases of E. G. Rogers & Co., and Pooley, Nicoll, & Co., be and the same are hereby reversed with costs; and that this cause be and the same is hereby remanded to the said Circuit Court for further proceedings to be had therein in conformity to the opinion of this court, and as to law and justice shall appertain.


text: Talk:Rogers v. Steamer St. Charles/Opinion of the Court

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


text:
Coiron v. Millaudon

THIS was an appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the eastern district of Louisiana, sitting as a court of equity.

The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court.

It was submitted on a printed argument by Mr. Hunt and Mr. Ogden for the appellants, and argued by Mr. Benjamin for the appellees.

The point upon which the case was decided was thus stated by Mr. Benjamin:

I. There is an absence of the parties indispensable in the suit. The complainants seek to set aside a sale made by the creditors of Coiron, through the agency of their syndic, to Millaudon and Lesseps.

In order to do this, both vendor and vendees must be parties. Shields v. Barrow, 17 Howard, 131.

It is obvious, that if the sale complained of be set aside, the effect would be to entitle the defendants to recover back their money from the syndic or the creditors, and to entitle the creditors to take back the property, and have it regularly sold in satisfaction of their claims.

Mr. Justice NELSON delivered the opinion of the court.

title: Coiron v. Millaudon


text: Talk:Coiron v. Millaudon

title: Talk:Coiron v. Millaudon


text:
Coiron v. Millaudon/Opinion of the Court

This is an appeal from a decree of the district judge, sitting in the Circuit Court of the United States for the eastern district of Louisiana.

The bill was filed in the court below, by two of the heirs of J. J. Coiron, against Alexander Lesseps, Laurent Millaudon, and others, to set aside a sale of a plantation and slaves to the two defendants named, in 1834, in pursuance of proceedings in a case of insolvency before a parish court in the city of New Orleans.

The father of the complainants, having become insolvent in 1833, applied to the court for liberty to surrender his property for the benefit of his creditors, and that in the mean time all proceedings against his person or property might be stayed, which application was granted, and the surrender of his property accepted.

Theodore Nicolet was appointed syndic of the creditors, and such proceedings were had, that a sale of the plantation and slaves was directed in March, 1834, when the two defendants became the purchasers. The inventory of the debts of the insolvent, which accompanied his application to the parish court, exceeded $177,000, and of his assets, $137,000. The assets sold for some $77,000; and after satisfying the charges and expenses of the proceedings, the balance was distributed among the creditors under the direction of the court. This amount, some $60,000, fell short of satisfying the claims of the two principal creditors, Van Brugh Livingston, and Harriet, his wife, of New York, and the firm of Nicolet & Co., of New Orleans, which were secured upon the estate by mortgages.

The object of this suit is to set aside the sale on the ground of irregularities in the insolvent proceedings, which are set forth in detail in the bill.

The court below, after hearing the case upon the pleadings and proofs, decreed against the complainants and dismissed the bill.

The record is quite voluminous, but we have stated enough of the facts to present the questions upon which we shall dispose of the case.

According to the law of Louisiana, on a surrender by the insolvent of his property for the benefit of creditors, the estate vests in the latter sub modo, and is disposed of by them through the agency of the syndic, under the supervision and control of the court before whom the proceedings take place. 2 Rob. R., 193, 194.

They appoint the syndic and fix the terms and conditions of the sale, and have the charge of the estate in the mean time between the surrender and final disposition.

The creditors, therefore, are the parties chiefly concerned in these proceedings; and as it respects those to whom the proceeds of the estate have been distributed, they are directly interested in upholding the sale; for, if it is set aside, and the proceedings declared a nullity, they would be liable to refund the share of the purchase money each one had received in the distribution.

A court of equity, in setting aside a deed of a purchaser upon grounds other than positive fraud on his part, sets it aside upon terms, and requires a return of the purchase money, or that the conveyance stand as a security for its payment. 1 J. Ch. R., 478; 4 J. R., 536, 598, 599.

This constitutes the essential difference between relief in equity and that afforded in a court of law. A court of law can hold no middle course. The entire claim of each party must rest, and be determined at law, on the single point of the validity of the deed; but it is the ordinary case in the former court, that a deed not absolutely void, yet, under the circumstances, inequitable as between the parties, may be set aside upon terms.

Nicolet & Co., and Van Brugh Livingston and wife, the mortgage creditors, or their legal representatives, were therefore necessary parties to the bill, as any decree made in the case disturbing the sale may seriously affect their interests.

This objection has been anticipated in the bill, and an averment made that these parties were out of the jurisdiction of the court. But it is well settled, that neither the act of Congress of 1839, (5 U.S. Stat. at Large, 321, sec. 1,) nor the 47th rule of this court, enables the Circuit Court to make a decree in a suit in the absence of a party whose rights must necessarily be affected by such decree, and that the objection may be taken at any time upon the hearing, or in the appellate court. 17 How., 130; 1 Peters, 299.

We think the decision of the court below was right in dismissing the bill, and therefore affirm the decree.


text: Talk:Coiron v. Millaudon/Opinion of the Court


text: Long v. O'Fallon

title: Long v. O'Fallon


text: Talk:Long v. O'Fallon

title: Talk:Long v. O'Fallon


text:
Long v. O'Fallon/Opinion of the Court

THIS was an appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the district of Missouri, sitting as a court of equity.

It was a bill filed by a part of the heirs of Gabriel Long, (Clara V. Long, one of the heirs, having been left out as a complainant, on account of her residence in Missouri, but made a defendant to an amended bill, after a demurrer had been sustained upon this ground,) under the following circumstances:

In 1799, the Spanish Government surveyed for Antoine Morin a tract of land, fronting on the Mississippi river, supposed to be sixteen arpens in front, having a depth of forty arpens, which, in February, 1809, was confirmed to his widow and heirs, he being then dead. The survey showing, however, that the tract contained more than 640 arpens, that quantity only was confirmed; and the commissioners directed another survey to be made, so as to throw off the surplus on the western side of the tract.

In October, 1809, the Morins conveyed the property to Elijah Smith, who, in September, 1812, conveyed it to Alexander McNair.

In 1817, the survey ordered by the board was made, but the surplus quantity was thrown off from the south side of the tract instead of the west, by which means fractional sections 26, 27, 33, 34, and 35, of townships 46, range 7 east, were reunited to the body of public lands.

In 1820, McNair, being indebted to Gabriel Long, mortgaged to him a tract of one hundred and twenty arpens of land, situated on the river Gingrass, and fronting on the river Mississippi, and bounded southwardly by land formerly owned by Clement B. Penrose, northwardly by the land of Joseph Morin, and westwardly by the land now or formerly owned by Joseph Brazeau, being the same land which he had purchased from Elijah Smith. The land was three arpens in front, by forty in depth, and was nearly or quite identical with the land thrown out, as above mentioned.

In October, 1822, Gabriel Long died.

In December, 1822, Alexander McAllister took out letters of administration upon the estate of Long, and on the 19th of February, 1823, commenced suit to foreclose the mortgage against McNair, and obtained a decree of foreclosure in October, 1823, and an order to sell the mortgaged premises.

Although somewhat in advance of the chronological order of events, it is proper here to introduce the following admission of counsel, which was filed in the cause:

'It is admitted in this case that Catharine Dodge was the aunt of Mrs. McNair, wife of Alexander McNair. It is admitted that in the inventory of Alexander McAllister, filed by him as administrator of Gabriel Long, deceased, in the county court of St. Louis county, said McAllister charged himself with the following debts, as due to said Long's estate from Alexander McNair, viz: note on McNair, $1,889, drawing 10 per cent.; note on McNair, $100; debt on McNair, $340; in all, $2,329. That in the settlement of said McAllister, as such administrator, in said court, at the February term, 1828, he was credited by the same amounts charged against him in inventory, the same being desperate as he stated in said settlement.'

It is admitted that Mrs. Long, wife of Gabriel Long, after his death, married Alexander McAllister; and after his death, she married Abel Rathbone Corbin, and she is still living.

To resume the thread of the narrative.

In March, 1824, Catharine Dodge took out a patent from the United States for fractional sections 34 and 26, making together a little upwards of 128 acres, and being a part of the land thrown out, as above mentioned, and included in the mortgage from McNair to Long.

In August, 1824, the sale of the mortgaged premises took place under a decree of the court, as above mentioned, when McAllister became the purchaser for the sum of one hundred and twenty dollars.

In September, 1824, Catharine Dodge united with McNair in executing a deed, by way of mortgage to McAllister, in order to secure the payment of two thousand six hundred and fifty dollars, admitted to be due from McNair to McAllister, as the administrator of Long. This deed gave to McAllister the power to sell the premises, viz: fractional sections 34 and 26.

In January, 1828, McAllister entered in his own right fractional sections 27, 33, and 35, containing in the whole about nine acres, and being the residue of the lands thrown out by the survey.

On the 10th of August, 1828, Mrs. Dodge, in consideration of the debt due by McNair to McAllister, secured by the mortgage, above referred to, released to McAllister all her right, title, and interest, in the above premises.

In February, 1833, McAllister and wife conveyed to John O'Fallon, for the consideration of twelve hundred dollars, all that tract of land lying on or near the river Gingrass, in the county of St. Louis, being three arpens in front, by forty arpens, more or less, in depth, forming a superficies of one hundred and forty arpens, without recourse, however, to the grantors for any defect of title.

This was the same land which had been mortgaged by McNair, purchased by McAllister at public sale, and conveyed to him (in part) by Mrs. Dodge. O'Fallon had previously gone into possession of the premises, about the year 1830, under an agreement with McAllister.

In December, 1852, the heirs of Gabriel Long, residing in California and Mississippi, filed their bill against O'Fallon, on the equity side of the Circuit Court of the United States for Missouri. The bill alleged that McAllister, being administrator of Gabriel Long, and purchasing the mortgaged property, had thereby become a trustee for the use of the heirs; that the deed of conveyance, executed by Catharine Dodge, to secure debts due to McAllister and the estate of Long, enured to the benefit of the heirs of Long, as did also the patent for the three fractional sections taken out in his own name by McAllister; that he had never accounted with the heirs for the $120, which was the purchase money of the mortgaged property; that O'Fallon was a purchaser with notice, in fact and in law, and that the sale made to him by McAllister and wife was fraudulent in fact and in law; and that thereby O'Fallon became a trustee for the heirs of Long to the same extent that McAllister was bound to them.

The defendant, O'Fallon, filed his answer, in which, amongst other matters, he denied that he was a purchaser with notice, asserting, on the contrary, that when he purchased said real estate described in the two deeds made by said McAllister to this defendant-one in August, 1828, and the other in February, 1833-and paid the consideration expressed in said two deeds to said McAllister, this defendant had never heard the title of said McAllister, or his right to sell said real estate, questioned; said McAllister always claimed and treated it as his own, and in his own right. If this defendant has had any notice or intimation from any one that said McAllister's title or right to sell said real estate was questioned or questionable, or that he held or claimed it only in trust for other parties, and not in his own individual right, this defendant would not have purchased said real estate, or had anything to do with it, and certainly this defendant would not have paid the consideration for said real estate that he did, if the title thereto, or right to sell, had been questioned or questionable; for the said price or consideration paid for said real estate to said McAllister, by this defendant, was equal to the cash value thereof at that time.

The defendant further alleged that he had been in continuous possession, in good faith, under his claim of title, for twenty years and upwards, next before the bill was filed, and set that up as a bar to the claim of the complainants.

After various proceedings in the case, it came up for argument in April, 1855, when the court dismissed the bill with costs.

The complainants appealed to this court.

It was argued by Mr. Glover for the appellants, and Mr. Geyer for the appellee.

The following notice of the points, on behalf of the appellants is taken from the brief of Mr. Glover:

1. The case of the appellants rests upon the doctrine of resulting trusts, aided by that of fiduciary relation. An administrator who purchases land under a judgment in favor of the intestate, holds it as a trustee. It must be intended that an administrator so purchasing, does so at the request and for the benefit of the heirs. He is a trustee for the heirs, and cannot divest himself of the trust.

And the cestui que trust may take the land at his election. Fellows v. Fellows, 4 Cowen, 698, 704, 706.

One Hedden purchased at an executor's sale part of the property sold, for the separate use of the executor's wife. The purchase was at public auction, and for a fair price.

Held that no fraud or unfairness need be shown, but that the sale was void at the pleasure of the persons interested, and if they said so the sale must be set aside. Davon v. Fanning, 2 J. Ch. R., 252.

We have been unable to find any one well-considered case to sustain the right of an executor to become the purchaser of property which he represents, or any portion of it, even at a fair price at public sale, without fraud. Michond v. Girod, 4 Howard, 557. This case states all the reasons of the rule.

Where lands in the hands of a party stand affected with a trust, and the person in whose hands they so stood has sold them to a third person, the cestui que trust has the right to follow the lands into the hands of any one but an innocent purchaser. And the trustee cannot deprive him of this right. Oliver v. Piatt, 3 Howard, 401.

Meyer conveyed his property in trust to pay debts. Part of it was sold under an execution in the control of the trustee, and bought by him.

Held, the purchaser took in trust for the beneficiary. Harrison, administrator, et al., v. Mock et al., 10 Ala. R., 185.

If an agent discovers a defect in the title to the land of his principal, he cannot misuse it to acquire a title to it himself. Ringo v. Burnes, 10 Peters, 281.

Where the trustee aliens the land pendente lite, the cestui que trust may elect to take the land, or the money it sold for. Murray v. Lylburn, 2 J. Ch. R., 422.

The cestui que trust may affirm the sale, and take the property, or have a resale. Thorp et al. v. McCullum et al., 1 Gilman Ill. R., 614.

It seems the beneficiary has three courses he may pursue in his election. 1. He may set aside the purchase, and have a resale. 2. He may affirm it, and take the property as his own. 3. He may take the money.

That the cestui que trust has this election only shows that he owns the property.

2. That O'Fallon knew how McAllister came by the property, and that he held it in trust for the persons interested in the estate of Gabriel Long; they having paid the purchase-money is manifest from the title-papers themselves.

3. The article of agreement between O'Fallon and McAllister, dated August 12, 1828, recites that on the 9th August, 1828, McAllister relinquished to O'Fallon the title procured from Mrs. Dodge in August, 1828. This date of the '9th' is a manifest mistake, because the deed of Mrs. Dodge, in August, 1828, was made 10th of August, and could not therefore have been recited by a conveyance on the 9th. Besides, this part of the instrument was no evidence against the plaintiffs. The agreement was valid to show a sale to O'Fallon on the 12th, but not evidence of the recited matter against the appellants.

4. On the sale to McAllister, in 1824, the property in dispute was held by him in trust. On the 10th August, 1828, after the release of Mrs. Dodge, the property in dispute was held by him in trust. And if he did, as recited in the instrument of August 12, 1828, sell the interest gotten of Mrs. Dodge, on the 10th, to O'Fallon, he had no power to divest the title of Long's heirs thereby.

5. The entries by McAllister, in January, 1828, were in fraud of the rights of the heirs of Long, and enured to their benefit.

It is impossible to conceive the ground on which the Circuit Court dismissed the bill, as to these entries. McAllister, who held the property as administrator, and who in this way learned of the defects in the title, went into the market and purchased up, on his own mere motion, an outstanding title to the trust estate. See Hoffman's Ch. R., 195; De Bevoix v. Sandford, 5 Vesey, 678; 3 Mer., 200; 13 Vesey, 601.

6. The property when vested in McAllister being in equity, the property of Long's heirs could only be sold by proceedings in the Probate Court, in conformity with the statute law. See Revised Code of Missouri, 1825, vol. 1, pp. 106, 40, 41.

7. The statute of limitations is not applicable to the case, or if it is, it did not begin to run till the deed to O'Fallon in 1833, which was the first repudiation of the trust by McAllister.

Mr. Geyer, for the defendant in error, made the following points:

I. The sale in August, 1824, under the decree of the St. Louis Circuit Court, was not a sale of any property belonging to the estate of Gabriel Long, nor was it a sale made by the administrator, nor under his direction or control; and therefore the purchase by the administrator was not a breach of any trust, nor did he become, in fact or law, a trustee for the heirs of Gabriel Long.

According to the laws of Missouri, Gabriel Long had no estate in the land embraced by the mortgage deed. The land was held as a security for the debt, and could be subject to sale only as the property of the mortgagor, and in the mode adopted by the administrator-by decree of a court-the sale to be made by the sheriff.

An administrator may buy goods of his intestate at sheriff's sale, (Haddix v. Haddix, 5 Lett., 204;) and so at an open and public sale, without fraud, an executor may purchase the property of his testator. Drayton v. Drayton, 1 Dessess., 567; Anderson v. Fox, 2 Hen. and M., 245; McKey v. Young, 4 Hen. and M., 430; Hudson v. Hudson, 5 Hen. and M., 180.

A person who had married a widow and administratrix, and was acting guardian of the minor heirs, was held to have a right to purchase the estate at full price at public sale directed by the court for the purpose of partition. McGuire v. McGowen, 4 Desaces, 486.

The case of Fillows v. Fillows (4 Cowen, 698, 704, 706) has been cited as authority to sustain the position of the appellant, that an administrator, who purchases land under a judgment in favor of the intestate, holds it as a trustee for the heirs, and cannot divest himself of the trust; and there is a marginal note to that effect, but it is not warranted by the opinion. In that case, the complainants sued as administrators, and set up the interest in the property as such, against persons not heirs, who demurred to the bill on the ground that the complainants came in two capacities, a part of the propery having been purchased by them at sheriff's sale, under a judgment in favor of their intestate. The court regarded the complainants as having averred substantially that they purchased as administrators, and it was not for the defendants to question their authority; and Judge Southerland said, 'It is to be presumed, at this stage of the cause, that they purchased at the request and for the benefit of the heirs, and a court of equity would compel them to account to the estate.'

The right of an executor or administrator to purchase on his own account the property of his testator or intestate, at a judicial sale under the order or process of a court, has been questioned; but there is no adjudged case, it is believed, in which it has been held that an executor or administrator may not purchase property of others at a public judicial sale, under a decree, judgment, or process, in favor of the testator of intestate, or of his personal representatives.

II. No estate or interest in the land in controversy was vested in the heirs of Gabriel Long by virtue of the tripartite deed of the 1st September, 1824, nor by the deed of Catherine Dodge to Alexander McAllister, of 10th of August, 1828.

The first of these deeds is a mortgage in trust for sale; under it, McAllister, as mortgagee, held the land to secure the debts due to the estate of Long, with power, in case of default in the payments stipulated for, to make sale absolutely, at public or private sale, of the land embraced; the proceeds to be applied first to the payment of the principal and interest of the debt, and the residue, if any, to be paid over to Mrs. Dodge-McAllister held the estate as trustee for Mrs. Dodge, subject to the debt due from McNair to Long's estate. The personal representatives of Long, not his heirs, held the security for the debt, and were entitled to enforce it.

Before the execution of the second deed, McAllister made a settlement of his accounts, as administrator of Gabriel Long's estate, and was credited with the amount of McNair's debts, as desperate, so that he was no longer charged therewith as administrator; but undoubtedly, if he afterwards received anything on account of that debt, by the sale of mortgaged property or otherwise, he was bound to account for it as administrator, if received while he continued to act as such, or with his successor, if he had ceased to be administrator.

The land continued to be held as a security for the debt of McNair, when Mrs. Dodge conveyed to McAllister her right to redeem the land which she had purchased from the United States, and mortgaged by the deed of 1st of September, 1824. McNair's right to redeem, however, still remained until the sale made to O'Fallon.

There is no allegation or evidence that McAllister applied any of the assets of the estate of his intestate to the purchase of any part of the land in question, either at the sheriff's sale in 1824, or in consideration of the deeds of Mrs. Dodge in 1824 and 1828; the accounts of the administrator, McAllister, exhibit no charge against the estate for anything paid on account of the land.

At the time O'Fallon became the purchaser, McAllister held in his own right all the estate and interest of McNair and Mrs. Dodge in the land, subject only to the encumbrance created by the tripartite deed of 1st September, 1824, under which he had a complete power of disposition, but was bound to apply so much of the proceeds of any sale as was necessary to the payment of the debt of McNair to Long's estate. That is, at most, the land was subject to a mortgage to secure the debt to Long, which enured to the personal representative of Long, and not an estate held by McAllister in trust for the heirs.

If, therefore, the defendant, O'Fallon, could be regarded as holding the land precisely as it was held by McAllister, he could be required only to satisfy the debt due from McNair to Long's estate, or sell the land and apply the proceeds to the payment; but he does not hold the estate in the land in trust for the heirs of Long; the cause of action, if any, against him, is in the personal representative of Gabriel Long. And, even if the heirs might prosecute an action in a court of equity for a money demand, the interest of Alton Long was not assigned by his deed to Penrise; and the bill was properly dismissed, because the heirs are not the proper parties complainant, and because a part of them only are made parties.

The sale to O'Fallon having been fairly made, and a full consideration paid, the title vested in him discharged of the encumbrance in favor of the personal representative of Gabriel Long created by the deed of 1st September, 1824.

The sale was made after the last settlement by McAllister of his accounts as administrator with the County Court of St. Louis, and it does not appear whether he afterwards accounted for the proceeds of the sale or not. The bill contains no allegation that he failed to account, and it was not put in issue in the cause. But it is clear that McAllister was authorized to make the sale to secure the money and make the conveyance, and there was no obligation on the part of the purchaser to see that he accounted for the proceeds as administrator of the estate of Long. Grant v. Hooke, 13 Sergt. and Rawle, 262; 2 Des., 378; Field v. Sheiffelin, 7 John. Ch. R., 160.

Mr. Justice CAMPBELL delivered the opinion of the court.

The appellants, a part of the heirs of Gabriel Long, deceased, instituted this suit in the Circuit Court against the defendant, to obtain a decree for a title to, and for an account for the rents and profits of, a parcel of land in St. Louis, Missouri.

The case made in the record is, that in 1820, Alexander McNair and wife executed a mortgage deed for the land in controversy to Gabriel Long, to secure a debt not then due. Before its payment, Long died, and Alexander McAllister was appointed to administer his estate. In 1823, this administrator obtained a decree in the Circuit Court of St. Louis county, for a foreclosure of the mortgage, and an order of sale, to be executed after a limited period. This order was executed in August, 1824, by a public sale of the property to McAllister, for a small portion of the debt.

The title of McNair before this sale had entirely failed The Spanish concession and survey, under which he claimed the land, had been surveyed and located by the officers of the land office so as to exclude this parcel, and, in consequence, it was subdivided into five fractional sections, and was subject to sale as public land. At the date of the sale by the sheriff, two of these fractions, embracing the whole tract except nine acres, were claimed by Catherine Dodge, under a patent from the United States, and the remaining sections were patented to McAllister, as a purchaser, by entry at the land office in 1828.

In September, 1822, Catherine Dodge and McNair agreed to secure the debt due to the estate of Long, by a mortgage in favor of McAllister.

The debt was divided into three unequal instalments, which were to be paid within three years by McNair; and Mrs. Dodge conveyed her two fractional sections, in mortgage, with a power of sale in the event of a default, to secure the performance of the obligation.

McNair failed to make the payments, and in 1828 Mrs. Dodge released to McAllister her equity of redemption and her claim upon him for any surplus from the mortgage, for the consideration of one dollar.

In 1828, the defendant purchased the five fractional sections from McAllister, for a fair price, and has been in the undisputed possession of the land since 1830. The defendant pleads the statute of limitations in bar of the recovery.

The opinion of the court is, that the conveyances of Mrs. Dodge to McAllister did not invest the heirs of Gabriel Long with an equitable estate, or a particular lien on the property described in them. Their primary object was to create a security, or a fund, for the payment of the debt of McNair, and to enable McAllister to dispose of the land in case of its non-payment, at his discretion, for its discharge. The release executed in 1828 was not made to extinguish any portion of the debt, nor did it remove the obligation of McAllister to convert the security into pecuniary assets. His sale of the land was a legitimate exercise of the powers of an administrator and trustee, and his vendee was not obliged to look to the application of the purchase-money. (Tyrrell v. Morris, Dev. and Batt. Ch. R., 559.) His failure to account was a devastavit, for which he and his sureties are liable on their official bond at law; and probably, if the land had been retain by him, or any person claiming as a volunteer under him, a court of equity might have permitted the heirs to accept the property, instead of the debt due to the estate. But, in the present instance, the defendant is a purchaser in good faith, and is entitled to hold the property, exempt from the claims of the plaintiffs. (Rayner v. Pearsall, 3 John. Ch. R., 578.)

Nor can the title for the defendant to the three small fractional sections entered by McAllister at the land office, and which were purchased from him by the defendant after his patent from the United States had been issued, be successfully questioned by the plaintiffs. The estate conveyed to Long by McNair, in mortgage, was known to be without value in 1824. McAllister did not acquire by the sheriff's deed any interest in the land, or profit from his purchase. The land was then a part of the public domain, and subject to entry at the land office, under the laws of the United States. Without considering whether there was any relation between this administrator and these heirs, which precluded the former to purchase the land for his own account, under the principles of equity, we are satisfied that the heirs are not entitled to pursue their claim against a purchaser for value, who has not been guilty of fraud or collusion.

The facts necessary to sustain the plea of the statute of limitations are proved on the part of the defendant, and no charge in the bill discloses a case of exception from its operation. (Piatt v. Vattier and others, 9 Pet., 405.)

Decree of the Circuit Court affirmed.

title: Long v. O'Fallon/Opinion of the Court


text: Talk:Long v. O'Fallon/Opinion of the Court


text:
Baker v. Nachtrieb

THIS was an appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the western district of Pennsylvania, sitting as a court of equity.

It was a bill filed by Nachtrieb, under the circumstances mentioned in the opinion of the court.

The Circuit Court, after having referred the case to a master to state an account, decreed that the trustees should pay to Nachtrieb the sum of $3,890; from which decree the trustees appealed to this court.

It was argued by Mr. Stanberry and Mr. Loomis for the appellants, and by Mr. Stanton for the appellee.

Mr. Justice CAMPBELL delivered the opinion of the court.

title: Baker v. Nachtrieb


text: Talk:Baker v. Nachtrieb

title: Talk:Baker v. Nachtrieb


text:
Baker v. Nachtrieb/Opinion of the Court

The appellee, who describes himself as a member in the common and joint-stock association for mutual benefit and advantage, and for the mutual acquisition and enjoyment of property, called the 'Harmony Society,' filed a bill in the Circuit Court against the appellants, as the trustees and managers of its business and estate. The object of the bill is to obtain for the plaintiff a decree for an account of the share to which he is entitled in the property of the society, or compensation for his labor and service during the time he was a member.

In 1819 he became associated with George Rapp and others, in the Harmony Society in Indiana, and remained with them there, or at Economy, in Beaver county, Pennsylvania, till 1846. He devoted his time, skill, attention, and care, during that period, to the increase of the wealth and the promotion of the interest of the society.

These facts are admitted in the pleadings of either party.

The bill avers, that in 1846, the plaintiff being then forty-eight years old, and worn out with years and labor for said association, was wrongfully and unjustly excluded from it, and deprived of any share in its property, benefits, or advantages, by the combination and covin of George Rapp and his associates; that at the time of his exclusion he was entitled to a large sum of money, which those persons unjustly and illegally appropriated to their own use; that George Rapp was the leader and trustee of the association, invested with the title to its property; and that, since his death, the defendants have acquired the control and management of its business and affairs, and the possession of its effects. The plaintiff calls for the production of the articles of association, which from time to time have regulated this society, and prays for an account and distribution of its property, or a compensation for his labor.

The defendants produce a series of articles, by which the association has been governed since its organization in 1805.

They admit, that from small beginnings the society have become independent in their circumstances, being the owners of lands ample for the supply of their subsistence, warm and comfortable houses for the members, and engines and machinery to diminish and cheapen their labors. They affirm that the plaintiff participated in all the individual, social, and religious benefits which were enjoyed by his fellows, under their contract, until he became possessed by a spirit of discontent and disaffection, a short time before his membership terminated. They deny that the plaintiff was wrongfully excluded from the association, or deprived of a share or participation in the property and effects, by the combination or covin of George Rapp and his associates; but assert, that voluntarily, and of his own accord, he separated himself from the society. They deny that he had a title to any compensation for labor and service while he was a member, other than that which was expended for his support, maintenance, and instruction, and that which he derived during the time from the spiritual and social advantages he enjoyed. To support this averment, they epitomize the history of the Harmony Society, and the agreements, which, from time to time, have been the basis of its organization.

The society was composed at first of Germans, who emigrated to the United States in 1805, under the leadership of George Rapp. The members were associated and combined by the common belief that the government of the patriarchal age, united to the community of property, adopted in the days of the Apostles, would conduce to promote their temporal and eternal happiness. The founders of the society surrendered all their property to the association, for the common benefit. The society was settled originally in Pennsylvania, was removed in 1814 and 1815 to Indiana, and again in 1825 to Economy, in Pennsylvania.

The organic law of the society, in regard to their property, is contained in two sections of the articles of association, adopted in 1827 by the associates, of whom the plaintiff was one. They are as follows: 'All the property of the society, real, personal, and mixed, in law or equity, and howsoever contributed and acquired, shall be deemed, now and forever, joint and indivisible stock; each individual is to be considered to have finally and irrevocably parted with all his former contributions, whether in land, goods, money, or labor, and the same rule shall apply to all future contributions, whatever they may be.

'Should any individual withdraw from the society, or depart this life, neither he, in the one case, nor his representatives, in the latter, shall be entitled to demand an account of said contributions, whether in land, goods, money, or labor; or to claim anything from the society as matter of right. But it shall be left altogether to the discretion of the superintendent to decide whether any, and, if any, what allowance shall be made to such member, or his representatives, as a donation.'

The defendants, admitting, as we have seen, that the plaintiff, until 1846, was a contented member of the association, answer and say, that during that year he became disaffected; used violent threats against the associates; made repeated declarations of his intentions to leave the society, and in that year fulfilled his design by a voluntary withdrawal and separation from the society, receiving at the same time from George Rapp two hundred dollars as a donation. They exhibit, as a part of the answer, a writing, signed by the plaintiff, to the following effect:

'To-day I have withdrawn myself from the Harmony Society, and ceased to be a member thereof; I have also received of George Rapp two hundred dollars as a donation, agreeably to contract.

JOSHUA NACHTRIEB.

'ECONOMY, June 18, 1846.'

This statement of the pleadings shows that no issue was made in them upon the merit of the doctrines, social or religious, which form the basis of this association; nor any question in reference to the religious instruction and ministration, or the domestic economy or physical discipline which their leader and the other managers have adopted and enforced. Nor do they suggest any inquiry into the condition of the members, and whether they have experienced hardship, oppression, or undue mortification, from the ambition, avarice, or fanaticism, of their guides and administrators.

The bill depends on the averments, that the plaintiff approved the constitution of the society; submitted to its government; obeyed its regulations, and prized the advantage of being a member. The burden of his complaint is, that he was wrongfully, and without any fault or consent on his part, deprived of his station through the combination of the leader and his assistants. And the defendants concede that the plaintiff the plaintiff claims for himself; they concede that the plaintiff was an approved and blameless member of the association, and was entitled to whatever its constitution and order provided for the temporal good or the eternal felicity of the members, and assert that he enjoyed them until he became disaffected and repining, and finally surrendered to a spirit of discontent, which moved him to abandon his condition and privileges. As an evidence of this, they produce a writing, signed by him, in which he acknowledges a voluntary secession from the society, and claims that the case has arisen to authorize him to make an appeal to the bounty of the superintendent, and that the superintendent has answered that appeal by a donation. The value of this writing is now to be considered. The power of the superintendent to substract from the otherwise 'joint and indivisible stock' of the society a portion for the individual use of a seceding member, depends upon the concession that the member has withdrawn voluntarily. He cannot supply one who is the victim of covin or combination. The evidence shows that the mind of the plaintiff, in June, 1846, was disquieted in consequence of his connection with the association, and that he contemplated a change in his condition; that he made inquires upon the expediency of a removal from Economy, and made some preparations for his departure; that the leader of the society, suspecting his discontent, and discovering some deviation by him from the rules of the society, rebuked him with harshness, and menaced him with a sentence of expulsion. Some of the witnesses testify to such a sentence, while the testimony of others reduces the expressions to an admonition and menace. But two days after the occurrence of the last of these scenes, and before any removal had taken place, the writing in the record was executed by him, embodying his decision to leave the society, and to accept the bounty the constitution permitted the superintendent to bestow. This writing would have much probative force, if we were simply to treat it as an admission of the statements it contains, when considered in connection with other evidence in the record. But, we think, this writing is something more than an admission, and stands in a different light from an ordinary receipt. The writing must be treated as the contract of dissolution, between the plaintiff and the society, of their mutual obligations and engagements to each other. No evidence of prior declarations or antecedent conduct is admissible to contradict or to vary it.

It was prepared to preserve the remembrance of what the parties had prescribed to themselves to do, and expresses their intention in their own langauge; and that such was its object, is corroborated by the fact that for three years there is no evidence of a contrary sentiment. Treating this writing as an instrument of evidence of this class, it is clear that the bill has not made a case in which its validity can be impeached. To enable the plaintiff to show that the rule of the leader, (Rapp,) instead of being patriarchal, was austere, oppressive, or tyrannical; his discipline vexatious and cruel; his instructions fanatical, and, upon occasions, impious; his system repugnant to public order, and the domestic happiness of its members; his management of their revenues and estate rapacious, selfish, or dishonest; and that the condition of his subjects was servile, ignorant, and degraded, so that none of them were responsible for their contracts or engagements to him, from a defect of capacity and freedom, as has been attempted by him in the testimony collected in this cause, it was a necessary prerequisite that his bill should have been so framed as to exhibit such aspects of the internal arrangements and social and religious economy of the association. This was not done; and for this cause the evidence cannot be considered. The authorities cited from the decisions of this court are decisive. Very v. Very, 13 How., 361, 345; Patton v. Taylor, 7 How., 157; Crockett v. Lee, 7 Wheat., 525.

Decree reversed. Bill dismissed.

title: Baker v. Nachtrieb/Opinion of the Court


text: Talk:Baker v. Nachtrieb/Opinion of the Court


text: Meegan v. Boyle

title: Meegan v. Boyle


text: Talk:Meegan v. Boyle

title: Talk:Meegan v. Boyle