text:
Johnson v. Towsley/Opinion of the Court

The jurisdiction of this court rests on two grounds found in the 25th section of the Judiciary Act, or, perhaps we should rather say, in the 2d section of the act of February 5th, 1867, which seems to be a substitute for the 25th section of the act of 1789, so far as it covers the same ground. The defendant in error relied on his patent, as conclusive of his right to the land, as an authority emanating from the United States, which was decided against him by the State court, and he relied upon certain acts of Congress as making good his title, and the decision of the State courts was against the right and title set up by him under those statutes. Undoubtedly the case is fairly within one or both of these clauses of the act of 1867, and the conclusiveness of the patent and the right of the plaintiffs in error claimed under the statutes must be considered.

The contest arises out of rival claims to the right of pre-emption of the land in controversy. The register and receiver, after hearing these claims, decided in favor of Towsley, the complainant, and allowed him to enter the land, received his money, and gave him a patent certificate. On appeal to the Commissioner of the Land Office their action was affirmed, but on a further appeal to the Secretary of the Interior, the action of these officers was reversed on a construction of an act of Congress, in which the secretary differed from them, and under that decision the patent was issued to Johnson.

It will be seen by this short statement of the case that the rights asserted by complainant, and recognized and established by the Nobraska courts, were the same which were passed upon by the register and receiver, by the commissioner, and by the Secretary of the Interior, and we are met at the threshold of this investigation with the proposition that the action of the latter officer, terminating in the delivery to the defendant of a patent for the land, is conclusive of the rights of the parties not only in the land department, but in the courts and everywhere else.

This proposition is not a new one in this court in this class of cases, but it is maintained that none of the cases heretofore decided extend, in principle, to the one before us; and the question being pressed upon our attention with an earnestness and fulness of argument which it has not perhaps before received, and with reference to statutes not heretofore considered by the court, we deem the occasion an appropriate one to re-examine the whole subject.

The statutory provision referred to is the 10th section of the act of June 12th, 1858, which declares that the 11th section of the general pre-emption law of 1841 shall 'be so amended that appeals from the decision of the district officers, in cases of contest between different settlers for the right of pre-emption, shalll hereafter be decided by the Commissioner of the General Land Office, whose decision shall be final, unless appeal therefrom be taken to the Secretary of the Interior.'

The finality here spoken of applies in terms to the decision of the commissioner, and can only be supposed to attach to that made by the secretary by some process of reasoning, which implies the absurdity of making the decision, on appeal to the secretary, less conclusive than that made by the inferior officer. But the section under consideration is only one of several enactments concerning the relative duties, power, and authority of the executive departments over the subject of the disposition of the public lands, and a brief reference to some of them will, we think, show what was intended by this amendment. By the 1st section of the act to reorganize the General Land Office, approved July 4th, 1836, it was enacted that the executive duties now prescribed, or which may hereafter be prescribed, by law, appertaining to the surveying and sale of the public lands,. . . and the issuing of patents for all grants of land, under the authority of the United States, shall be subject to the supervision and control of the Commissioner of the General Land Office, under the direction of the President of the United States. In the case of Barnard's Heirs v. Ashley's Heirs, it was held that this authorized the commissioner to entertain appeals from the decisions of the register and receiver in regard to pre-emption claims, and it is obvious that the direct control of the President was contemplated whenever it might be invoked. Afterward, when the act of September 4th, 1841, was passed, which so enlarged the right of pre-emption as to have been ever since considered the main source of pre-emption rights, the 11th section provided that all questions as to the right of pre-emption arising between different settlers should be settled by the register and receiver of the district within which the land is situated, subject to an appeal to and revision by the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States. This provision, in the class of cases to which it referred, superseded the functions of the Commissioner of the Land Office, as revising officer to the register and receiver, and, so far as the act of 1836 associated the President with the commissioner, superseded his supervisory functions also. It left the right of appeal from the register and receiver to the Secretary of the Treasury direct as the head of the department. The 10th section of the act of 1858, so much relied upon by the plaintiffs in error, the operative language of which we have quoted, was clearly intended to remedy this defect or oversight, and to restore to the commissioner his rightful control over the matters which belonged to his bureau. In the use of the word final we think nothing more was intended than to say that, with the single exception of an appeal to his superior, the Secretary of the Interior, his decision should exclude further inquiry in that department. But we do not see, in the language used in this connection, any intention to give to the final decision of the Department of the Interior, to which the control of the land system of the government had been transferred, any more conclusive effect than what belonged to it without its aid.

But while we find no support to the proposition of the counsel for plaintiffs in error in the special provisions of the statute relied on, it is not to be denied that the argument is much stronger when founded on the general doctrine that when the law has confided to a special tribunal the authority to hear and determine certain matters arising in the course of its duties, the decision of that tribunal, within the scope of its authority, is conclusive upon all others. That the action of the land office in issuing a patent for any of the public land, subject to sale by pre-emption or otherwise, is conclusive of the legal title, must be admitted under the principle above stated, and in all courts, and in all forms of judicial proceedings, where this title must control, either by reason of the limited powers of the court, or the essential character of the proceeding, no inquiry can be permitted into the circumstances under which it was obtained. On the other hand there has always existed in the courts of equity the power in certain classes of cases to inquire into and correct mistakes, injustice, and wrong in both judicial and executive action, however solemn the form which the result of that action may assume, when it invades private rights; and by virtue of this power the final judgments of courts of law have been annulled or modified, and patents and other important instruments issuing from the crown, or other executive branch of the government, have been corrected or declared void, or other relief granted. No reason is perceived why the action of the land office should constitute an exception to this principle. In dealing with the public domain under the system of laws enacted by Congress for their management and sale, that tribunal decides upon private rights of great value, and very often, from the nature of its functions, this is by a proceeding essentially ex parte, and peculiarly liable to the influence of frauds, false swearing, and mistakes. These are among the most ancient and well-established grounds of the special jurisdiction of courts of equity just referred to, and the necessity and value of that jurisdiction are nowhere better exemplified than in its application to cases arising in the land office. It is very well known that these officers do not confine themselves to determining, before a patent issues, who is entitled to receive it, but they frequently assume the right, long after a patent has issued and the legal title passed out of the United States, to recall or set aside the patent, and issue one to some other party, and if the holder of the first patent refuses to surrender it they issue a second. In such a case as this have the courts no jurisdiction? If they have not, who shall decide the conflicting claims to the land? If the land officers can do this a few weeks or a few months after the first patent has issued, what limit is there to their power over private rights? Such is the case of Stark v. Starrs, in which the patent was issued to one party one day and to the other the day after for the same land. They are also in the habit of issuing patents to different parties for the same land, containing in each instrument thus issued a reservation of the rights of the other party. How are those rights to be determined except by a court of equity? Which patent shall prevail, and what conclusiveness, or inflexible finality, can be attached to a tribunal whose acts are in their nature so inconclusive? So also the register and receiver, to whom the law primarily confides these duties, often hear the application of a party to enter land as a pre-emptor or otherwise, decide in favor of his right, receive his money, and give him a certificate that he is entitled to a patent. Undoubtedly this constitutes a vested right, and it can only be divested according to law. In every such case, where the land office afterwards sets aside this certificate, and grants the land thus sold to another person, it is of the very essence of judicial authority to inquire whether this has been done in violation of law, and, if it has, to give appropriate remedy. And so, if for any other reason recognized by courts of equity, as a ground of interference in such cases, the legal title has passed from the United States to one party, when, in equity and good conscience, and by the laws which Congress has made on the subject, it ought to go to another, 'a court of equity will,' in the language of this court in the case of Stark v. Starrs, just cited, 'convert him into a trustee of the true owner, and compel him to convey the legal title.' In numerous cases this has been announced to be the settled doctrine of this court in reference to the action of the land officers.

Not only has it been found necessary in the interest of justice to hold this doctrine in regard to the decisions of the land officers of the United States, but it has been found equally necessary in the States which have had a system of land sales. Numerous cases are found in the courts of Kentucky and Virginia, where they have, by proceedings in equity, established the junior patent to be the title instead of the elder patent, by an inquiry into the priority of location or some other equitable matter, or have compelled the holder of the title under the patent to convey, in whole or in part, to some persons whose claim rested on matters wholly anterior to the issuing of the patent. There is also a similar course of adjudication in the State of Pennsylvania, and we doubt not cases may be found in other States. Several of the Kentucky cases have come to this court, where the principle has been uniformly upheld.

It is said, however, that the present case does not come within any of the adjudicated cases on this subject; that in all of them there has been some element of fraud or mistake on which the cases rested.

Undoubtedly there has been in all of them some special ground for the exercise of the equitable jurisdiction, for this court does not and never has asserted that all the matters passed upon by the land office are open to review in the courts. On the contrary, it is fully conceded that when those officers decide controverted questions of fact, in the absence of fraud, or impositions, or mistake, their decision on those questions is final, except as they may be reversed on appeal in that department. But we are not prepared to concede that when, in the application of the facts as found by them they, by misconstruction of the law, take from a party that to which he has acquired a legal right under the sanction of those laws, the courts are without power to give any relief. And this is precisely what this court decided in the case of Minnesota v. Batchelder, and in the case of Silver v. Ladd. In this latter case a certificate under the Oregon donation law, given by the register and receiver, was set aside by the commissioner, and his action approved by the secretary, and the action of each of these officers was based on a different construction of the act of Congress. This court held that the register and receiver were right; that the certificate conferred a valid claim to the land, and that the patent issued to another party by reason of this mistake must enure to the benefit of the party who had the prior and better right. This court has at all times been careful to guard itself against an invasion of the functions confided by law to other departments of the government, and in reference to the proceedings before the officers intrusted with the charge of selling the public lands it has frequently and firmly refused to interfere with them in the discharge of their duties, either by mandamus or injunction, so long as the title remained in the United States and the matter was rightfully before those officers for decision. On the other hand, it has constantly asserted the right of the proper courts to inquire, after the title had passed from the government, and the question became one of private right, whether, according to the established rules of equity and the acts of Congress concerning the public lands, the party holding that title should hold absolutely as his own, or as trustee for another. And we are satisfied that the relations thus established between the courts and the land department are not only founded on a just view of the duties and powers of each, but are essential to the ends of justice and to a sound administration of the law.

In the case now under consideration the complainant made his declaratory statement and proved his settlement to the satisfaction of the register and receiver, and they gave him a patent certificate. The defendant, Johnson, contested the complainant's right before these officers and asserted that he was entitled to the pre-emption right for the same land, and when they decided in favor of Towsley he appealed to the commissioner. This officer approved the decision of the register and receiver, and an appeal was taken by Johnson to the Secretary of the Interior. The secretary, or rather the assistant secretary, as appears by the record, rejected Towsley's claim on the sole ground that he had previously filed a declaratory statement of his intention to claim a pre-emption for another tract of land, which he had voluntarily abandoned, and it is clear that but for his construction of the statute on that subject Towsley would have received the patent which was awarded to Johnson.

We must therefore inquire whether the statute, rightly construed, defeated Towsley's otherwise perfect right to the patent, and this inquiry requires consideration of some of the features of our system of land sales.

One of these is that after the surveys are made in any given locality, so that the different tracts can be identified by the descriptions used in these surveys, they are not subject to sale by private entry at the land office until there has been a public auction, at which the lands so surveyed are offered to the highest bidder. The time and place of this sale and the lands offered for sale are made known by a proclamation of the President. The object of this public sale and of withholding the lands from private entry is undoubtedly to secure to the government the benefit of competition in bidding for these parcels of land supposed to be worth more than the price fixed by Congress, at which they may afterward be sold at private entry. But as the tide of emigration was greatly in advance of these public sales, and indeed of the surveys, it was found that settlers who had made meritorious improvements were unable to secure the land on which they had settled without bidding at public auction against parties who took into consideration the value of the improvements so made and who would get them by the purchase. To remedy this evil several of the earlier pre-emption laws were passed, and they only included settlements made prior to the passage of those laws. The act of 1841, however, provided a general system of pre-emption, and authorized pre-emption of lands surveyed, but not open to private entry, as well as land which could be bought at private sale. It protected settlements already made, and allowed future settlements to be made with a right to pre-emption, which was a new feature in the pre-emption system. As, however, these settlements might how be made on lands subject to private sale, and the settler was allowed a year in which to make his entry and pay the money, the 15th section of the act required the settler on such lands to make a declaratory statement if he intended to claim a right of pre-emption, in which he should declare such intention and describe the land. This statement was filed with the register and receiver, and was obviously intended to enable them to reserve the tract from sale for the time allowed the settler to perfect his entry and pay for the land. But an experience of two years seems to have shown that this privilege of withdrawing particular tracts from private sale was subject to abuse by persons who filed declarations for several tracts when they could only receive one as a pre-emptor, thus delaying the sales and preventing others from settling on or buying, with a view to a purchase by themselves or friends when it became convenient to do so. To remedy this evil Congress, when it came to legislate again about the right of pre-emption, by the act of 1843, enacted by the 4th section 'that where an individual had filed, under the late pre-emption law, his declaration of intention to claim the benefit of said law for one tract of land, it shall not be lawful for the same individual, at any future time, to file a second declaration for another tract.' As the only declaration of intention required by the act of 1841 (which is undoubtedly the one referred to as 'the late pre-emption law') was, both by its express terms and by the policy which dictated it, confined to pre-emptions of land subject to private entry, we entertain no doubt that this section was limited, in like manner, to that class of lands. As to lands not subject to private sale no declaration of intention was required by the act of 1841, and the reference to such a declaration in the act of 1843 would be without anything on which to base it. This view is made still clearer by the fact that the next succeeding section of the act of 1843 does introduce distinctly, as a new and separate provision, the requirements that settlers on the land not yet proclaimed for sale are required to make a similar declaration, within three months from the time of settlement, on pain of forfeiting their pre-emption right in favor of the next actual settler, but making no provision whatever for the case of two declarations by the same party on different tracts of land. We are, therefore, of opinion that the effect of a double declaration in defeating the right of the pre-emptor to the tract which he finally claims to purchase is limited to lands subject, at the time, to private sale. The land in controversy in this suit was never subject to private entry, and the application of the principle by the secretary to Towsley's case was, as we think, a misconstruction of the law, through which his right was denied him.

But it is argued that if the pre-emption claim of Towsley was not governed by the 4th section of the act of 1843, it certainly was by the 5th section of that act, and as he did not file his declaration of intention within three months from the time of settlement, his claim was forfeited and gave him no right.

The record shows undoubtedly that his settlement commenced about eight months before he filed his declaration, and it must be conceded that the land was of that class which had not been proclaimed for sale, and his case must be governed by the provision of that section. It declares that where the party fails to make the declaration within the three months his claim is to be forfeited and the tract awarded to the next settler in order of time on the same tract, who shall have given such notice and otherwise complied with the conditions of the law. The words 'shall have given such notice,' presuppose a case where some one has given such notice before the party who has thus neglected seeks to assert his right. If no other party has made a settlement or has given notice of such intention, then no one has been injured by the delay beyond three months, and if at any time after the three months, while the party is still in possession, he makes his declaration, and this is done before any one else has initiated a right of pre-emption by settlement or declaration, we can see no purpose in forbidding him to make his declaration or in making it void when made. And we think that Congress intended to provide for the protection of the first settler by giving him three months to make his declaration, and for all other settlers by saying if this is not done within three months any one else who has settled on it within that time, or at any time before the first settler makes his declaration, shall have the better right. As Towsley's settlement and possession were continuous, and as his declaration was made before Johnson or any one else asserted claim to the land or made a settlement, we think his right was not barred by that section, under a sound construction of its meaning.

We are of opinion that the decree of the Supreme Court of Nebraska must be

AFFIRMED.

I dissent from the judgment of the court in this case, upon the ground that the case is controlled by the act of Congress which provides that the decision of the Commissioner of the General Land Office shall be final unless an appeal is taken to the Secretary of the Interior. In my judgment the decree of the commissioner is final if no appeal is taken, and in case of appeal that the decision of the appellate tribunal created by the act of Congress is equally final and conclusive, except in cases of fraud or mistake not known at the time of the investigation by the land department.

Mr. Justice DAVIS took no part in the decision of this or the next case, being interested in the question involved.

At the same time with the preceding case was adjudged another from the same court with it, to wit, the case of

title: Johnson v. Towsley/Opinion of the Court


text: Talk:Johnson v. Towsley/Opinion of the Court

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


text: Samson v. Smiley

title: Samson v. Smiley


text: Talk:Samson v. Smiley

title: Talk:Samson v. Smiley


text:
Samson v. Smiley/Opinion of the Court

IN this case the controversy had been between one Samson and a certain Smiley, and the register and receiver had decided in favor of Smiley. Samson accordingly brought the case here. The case differed, as this court considered, in no respect from the case just decided, but one, which was that when the register and receiver decided in favor of Smiley against Samson, in the contest for the right of pre-emption to the land, they did not give him a patent certificate as they did to Towsley. The reason for this seemed to be that the contest between him and Samson was prosecuted immediately from the register and receiver's decision to the commissioner, and from the commissioner's decision affirming that of the register and receiver, to the secretary, so that there was no period, until the final decision of the latter, when either party could have been permitted to make the entry; but the record showed that, on a full and thorough investigation, all the officers of the land department decided that Smiley had established his right of pre-emption, and the secretary overruled this on the sole ground that he had filed a declaratory statement for another tract of land.

After argument by Mr. Trumbull, for Samson et al., plaintiffs in error, and by Messrs. M. H. Carpenter, J. M. Woolworth, and A. J. Poppleton, contra, the judgment of the court was delivered by Mr. Justice MILLER, to the effect that the land in question, having never been subject to private entry, the construction of the statute made by the secretary was erroneous, and operated to deprive Smiley of his right, otherwise perfect, to the land, and to vest the legal title, which he ought to have received, in Samson. The case came, therefore, as the court considered, within the principle just decided in Towsley v. Johnson, and the judgment of the Supreme Court of Nebraska was accordingly

AFFIRMED.

title: Samson v. Smiley/Opinion of the Court


text: Talk:Samson v. Smiley/Opinion of the Court


text:
Gibson v. Chouteau (80 U.S. 92)

ERROR to the Supreme Court of the State of Missouri.

Gibson brought ejectment in the St. Louis Land Court against Chouteau, to recover sixty-four acres of land in the county of St. Louis, Missouri. By consent of parties the case was tried by the court without a jury. On the trial the plaintiff claimed title to the demanded premises, under a patent of the United States issued to his immediate grantor, which he produced. The facts which led to the issue of the patent were these:

As early as September, 1803, as appeared from the record, one James Y. O'Carroll obtained permission from the Spanish authorities to settle on vacant lands in the District of New Madrid, in the Territory of Louisiana. In pursuance of this permission he occupied and cultivated, previously to December 20th, of that year, portions of a tract embracing one thousand arpents of land, in that part of the country which afterwards constituted the county of New Madrid in the Territory of Missouri. After the cession of Louisiana to the United States, he claimed the land by virtue of his settlement; and this claim was subsequently confirmed to him and his legal representatives, under different acts of Congress, to the extent of six hundred and forty acres.

In 1812 a large part of the land in the county of New Madrid was injured by earthquakes; and in 1815 Congress passed an act for the relief of parties who had thus suffered. By this act, persons whose lands had been materially injured were authorized to locate a like quantity of land on any of the public lands in the Territory of Missouri, the sale of which was authorized by law. And it was made the duty of the recorder of land titles in the Territory, when it appeared to him, from the oath or affirmation of a competent witness or witnesses, that any person was entitled to a tract of land under the provisions of the act, to issue to him a certificate to that effect. On this certificate, upon the application of the claimant, a location was to be made by the principal deputy surveyor of the Territory, who was required to cause the location to be surveyed, and a plat of the same to be returned to the recorder with a notice designating the tract located, and the name of the claimant.

The act further provided for a report to be forwarded by the recorder to the Commissioner of the General Land Office, of the claims allowed and locations made; and for the delivery to each claimant of a certificate of his claim and location which should entitle him, on its being transmitted to the commissioner, 'to a patent to be issued in like manner as is provided by law for other public lands of the United States.' The act also declared, that in all cases where the location was made under its provisions, the title of the claimant to the injured land should revert to and vest in the United States.

The land claimed by O'Carroll, in New Madrid County, afterwards confirmed to him, as already stated, to the extent of six hundred and forty acres, was injured by earthquakes, and in November, 1815, the recorder of land titles in St. Louis, upon proper proof of the fact, gave a certificate to that effect, and stating that under the act of Congress O'Carroll, or his legal representatives, were entitled to locate a like quantity on any of the public lands of the Territory of Missouri, the sale of which was authorized by law.

In June, 1818, a location of the land was made on behalf of one Christian Wilt, who had become by mesne conveyances the owner of the interest of O'Carroll. The land thus located had been previously surveyed by the deputy surveyor of the Territory, but from some unexplained cause the survey and plat thereof were not returned to the recorder, until August, 1841. The recorder then issued a patent certificate to 'James Y. O'Carroll or his legal representatives.' A report of the location was also made by him, as required by the act of Congress, to the Commissioner of the General Land Office, but it appeared that the survey of the location did not meet the approval of that officer, as it did not show its interferences with conflicting claims. Accordingly, in a communication dated in March, 1847, the commissioner required the surveyor-general of Missouri to examine into the interferences, and ascertain the residue of the O'Carroll claim, and stated that on the return to the land office 'of a proper plat and patent certificate for said residue, a patent' would issue. Under these instructions a new survey and plat were made, showing the interferences of the survey with other claims, and on the 26th of March, 1862, were filed with the recorder, and a new patent certificate was issued. Upon the corrected survey and plat and new certificate, the patent of the United States was, in June, 1862, issued to Mary McRee, who had acquired by various mesne conveyances the interest of Wilt in the land. In August following she conveyed to the plaintiff.

On the trial, the defendants endeavored to show that they had become, through certain legal proceedings, the owners of the interest originally possessed by Wilt, and consequently had acquired the equitable title to the land upon which they could defend against the patent, under the practice which prevails in Missouri. But in this endeavor they failed, the Supreme Court of the State holding that the conveyances under which they claimed were inoperative and void.

The defendants also relied upon a deed of Samuel McRee and wife, executed in 1838, contending that by operation of the deed under the statutes of Missouri, the equitable title which these grantors had subsequently acquired to the land and also the legal title conveyed by the patent to Mrs. McRee enured to the benefit of the defendants; but the Supreme Court held that the deed only had the effect of a quit-claim of an existing interest, and did not affect any subsequently acquired title.

The rulings of the State court upon these grounds were not open to review in this court, as they involved no questions of Federal jurisdiction. But it also appeared in evidence that the defendants, previous to the issue of the patent, had been in the possession of the demanded premises more than ten years, the period prescribed by the statute of Missouri, within which actions for the recovery of real property must be brought. By the statutes of the State the action of ejectment will lie on certain equitable titles. It may be maintained on a New Madrid location against any person not having a better title. The defendants, therefore, contended that the statute of limitation, which had run against the equitable title, created by the location of the O'Carroll claim, was also a bar to the present action founded upon the legal title, acquired by the patent of the United States.

The Land Court held that the effect of the patent issued by the United States to Mrs. McRee was to invest her with the legal title to the land in dispute; and that the title vested in the plaintiff through the deed to him from Mrs. McRee was superior to any title shown by the defendants to the land in question under the New Madrid certificate of location, and that the said patent having issued to Mrs. McRee within ten years next before the commencement of this suit, the possession of the defendants was not a bar to the plaintiff's recovery, and gave verdict and judgment accordingly for the plaintiff. From the judgment the case was taken to the Supreme Court of the State, and was twice heard there. Upon the first hearing the court affirmed the decision of the inferior court, holding that 'until the patent issued the legal title remained in the United States, and the statute of limitations did not begin to run against the plaintiff before the date of that patent.'

On the second hearing the court adhered to all its previous rulings except that which related to the effect of the statute of limitations, and upon that it changed its previous ruling and held that the statute barred the right of action upon the patent. In its opinion given on the second decision, after referring to its previous conclusion, cited above, it said:

'This conclusion proceeded upon the ground that although the action given by the statute upon the equitable right only, which had passed out of the United States, might be barred, it did not follow that an action based upon the right of entry by virtue of the absolute legal title by patent, would also be barred. The idea that the fiction of relation could be applied not only to carry the legal title to the owner of the inceptive right through the intermediate conveyances, but also for the purpose of bringing it within the operation of the statute of limitations from the date of the inceptive equity, had not been suggested and had not occurred to us.'

Again the court, after recognizing the fact that the legal title remained in the United States till the patent issued, and that the location only gave an equitable right, upon which an action was sustainable in the State courts by virtue of the State statute, said:

'The two rights of entry, therefore, are distinct in themselves, and the causes of action have a different foundation. The possession of the land is claimed in both, but by different rights, and if there were nothing more the one cause of action might be barred and not the other. But there is another principle upon which we think the statute may be made to operate here as a bar to the plaintiff's action, and that is the fiction of relation whereby the legal title is to be considered as passing out of the United States through the patent at its date, but as instantly dropping back in time to the date of the location as the first act or inception of the conveyance, to vest the title in the owner of the equity as of that date and make it pass from him to the patentee named through all the intermediate conveyances, and so that the two rights of entry and the two causes of action are thus merged in one, and the statute may be held to have operated on both at once. The legal title, on making this circuit, necessarily runs around the period of the statute bar, and the action founded on this new right is met by the statute on its way and cut off with that which existed before.'

The Supreme Court accordingly reversed the decision of the Land Court, and the case was brought here on writ of error under the 25th section of the Judiciary Act, and is reported in Gibson v. Chouteau, 8th Wallace, 314. When presented, the record disclosed questions respecting the validity of Mrs. McRee's title, the transfer of her title to the plaintiff, and the trust asserted by which it was contended that the plaintiff's title enured to the benefit of the defendants, as well as the statute of limitations. This court, therefore, as the report already mentioned shows, dismissed the writ of error, because the record did not show that the decision of the State court turned on the question of the statute of limitations or that the determination of this question against the plaintiff was essential to the second judgment rendered.

When the case went back to the Supreme Court of the State, that court set aside its judgment, stating that it had been rendered on the question of the statute of limitations; but that by a clerical error such fact was not stated therein. The case was then again submitted to that court, and the court then adjudged that the plaintiff was barred by the statute of limitations, all other questions being determined in his favor. It was this judgment which was now brought before this court on writ of error.

Messrs. Montgomery Blair and F. A. Dick, for the plaintiff in error.

Messrs. Glover and Shepley, contra.

Mr. Justice FIELD delivered the opinion of the court.

title: Gibson v. Chouteau (80 U.S. 92)


text: Talk:Gibson v. Chouteau (80 U.S. 92)

title: Talk:Gibson v. Chouteau (80 U.S. 92)


text:
Gibson v. Chouteau (80 U.S. 92)/Opinion of the Court

It is matter of common knowledge that statutes of limitation do not run against the State. That no laches can be imputed to the king, and that no time can bar his rights, was the maxim of the common law, and was founded on the principle of public policy, that as he was occupied with the cares of government he ought not to suffer from the negligence of his officers and servants. The principle is applicable to all governments, which must necessarily act through numerous agents, and is essential to a preservation of the interests and property of the public. It is upon this principle that in this country the statutes of a State prescribing periods within which rights must be prosecuted are not held to embrace the State itself, unless it is expressly designated or the mischiefs to be remedied are of such a nature that it must necessarily be included. As legislation of a State can only apply to persons and things over which the State has jurisdiction, the United States are also necessarily excluded from the operation of such statutes.

With respect to the public domain, the Constitution vests in Congress the power of disposition and of making all needful rules and regulations. That power is subject to no limitations. Congress has the absolute right to prescribe the times, the conditions, and the mode of transferring this property, or any part of it, and to designate the persons to whom the transfer shall be made. No State legislation can interfere with this right or embarrass its exercise; and to prevent the possibility of any attempted interference with it, a provision has been usually inserted in the compacts by which new States have been admitted into the Union, that such interference with the primary disposal of the soil of the United States shall never be made. Such provision was inserted in the act admitting Missouri, and it is embodied in the present Constitution, with the further clause that the legislature shall also not interfere 'with any regulation that Congress may find necessary for securing the title in such soil to the bon a fide purchasers.' The same principle which forbids any State legislation interfering with the power of Congress to dispose of the public property of the United States, also forbids any legislation depriving the grantees of the United States of the possession and enjoyment of the property granted by reason of any delay in the transfer of the title after the initiation of proceedings for its acquisition. The consummation of the title is not a matter which the grantees can control, but one which rests entirely with the government. With the legal title, when transferred, goes the right to possess and enjoy the land, and it would amount to a denial of the power of disposal in Congress if these benefits, which should follow upon the acquisition of that title, could be forfeited because they were not asserted before that title was issued.

Yet such forfeiture is claimed by the defendants in this case, and is sanctioned by the decision of the Supreme Court of Missouri. That court does not, it is true, present its decision in this light, but on the contrary it attempts to reconcile its decision with positions substantially such as we have already stated respecting the power of Congress over the public lands, and the inability of the State to interfere with the primary disposal of the soil of the United States. It declares it to be well settled, that statutes of limitation of a State cannot run against the United States, nor affect their grantees, until the title has passed from the proprietary sovereignty; that these statutes operate to bar the cause of action, not to convey the title; that no cause of action upon a right of entry by virtue of the legal title by patent can exist until the patent is issued; and that the action upon the equitable title created by the location is only given by a statute of the State; and as the two rights of entry have a different origin, that the latter, resting on the statute, might be barred, whilst that resting on the patent would continue in force, but for the operation of the fiction of relation. By a novel application of that doctrine, the court comes to the conclusion that the statute operates against both rights of entry at the same time.

By the doctrine of relation is meant that principle by which an act done at one time is considered by a fiction of law to have been done at some antecedent period. It is usually applied where several proceedings are essential to complete a particular transaction, such as a conveyance or deed. The last proceeding which consummates the conveyance is held for certain purposes to take effect by relation as of the day when the first proceeding was had. Thus, in the present case, the patent, which was issued in 1862, is said to take effect by relation at the time when the survey and plat of the location, made in 1818, were returned to the recorder of land titles under the act of Congress. At that time the title of the claimant to the land desired by him had its inception, and so far as it is necessary to protect his rights to the land, and the rights of parties deriving their interests from him, the patent is held to take effect by relation as of that date.

The Supreme Court of Missouri, considering that by this doctrine of relation, the legal title, when it passed out of the United States by the patent, instantly dropped back in time to the location of the first act or inception of the conveyance, and vested the title in the owner of the equity as of that date, held that the statute intercepted the title as it passed through the intermediate conveyances from that period to the patentee. 'The legal title,' said the court, 'in making this circuit, necessarily runs around the period of the statute bar, and the action founded upon this new right is met by the statute on its way, and cut off with that which existed before.'

The error of the learned court consisted in overlooking the fact that the doctrine of relation is a fiction of law adopted by the courts solely for the purposes of justice, and is only applied for the security and protection of persons who stand in some privity with the party that initiated proceedings for the land, and acquired the equitable claim or right to the title. The defendants in this case were strangers to that party and to his equitable claim, or equitable title, as it is termed, not connecting themselves with it by any valid transfer from the original or any subsequent holder. The statute of limitations of Missouri did not operate to convey that claim or equitable title to them. It only extinguished the right to maintain the action of ejectment founded thereon, under the practice of the State. It left the right of entry upon the legal title subsequently acquired by the patent wholly unaffected.

In the Federal courts, where the distinction between legal and equitable proceedings is strictly maintained, and remedies afforded by law and equity are separately pursued, the action of ejectment can only be sustained upon the possession by the plaintiff of the legal title. For the enforcement of equitable rights, however clear, distinct equitable proceedings must be instituted. The patent is the instrument which, under the laws of Congress, passes the title of the United States. It is the government conveyance. If other parties possess equities superior to those of the patentee, upon which the patent issued, a court of equity will, upon proper proceedings, enforce such equities by compelling a transfer of the legal title, or enjoining its enforcement, or cancelling the patent. But, in the action of ejectment in the Federal courts, the legal title must prevail, and the patent, when regular on its face, is conclusive evidence of that title.

So also in the action of ejectment in the State courts, when the question presented is whether the plaintiff or the defendant has the superior legal title from the United States, the patent must prevail. For, as said in Bagnell v. Broderick, 'Congress has the sole power to declare the dignity and effect of titles emanating from the United States; and the whole legislation of the Federal government in reference to the public lands declares the patent the superior and conclusive evidence of legal title. Until its issuance the fee is in the government, which, by the patent, passes to the grantee, and he is entitled to recover the possession in ejectment.'

In several of the States, and such is the case in Missouri, equities of the character mentioned, instead of being presented in a separate suit, may be set up as a defence to the action of ejectment. The answer or plea in such case is in the nature of a bill in equity, and should contain all its essential averments. The defendant then becomes, with reference to the matters averred by him, an actor, and seeks, by the equities presented, to estop the plaintiff from prosecuting the action, or to compel a transfer of the title.

In Maguire v. Vice, where the plaintiff brought ejectment on a legal title, and gave in evidence a patent of the United States, and the defendant relied upon an equitable defence, the Supreme Court of Missouri said: 'Although our present practice act abolishes all distinctions between legal and equitable actions, yet a party who seeks relief on a merely equitable title against a legal title must, in his pleadings, whether he is plaintiff or defendant, set forth such a state of facts as would have entitled him to the relief he seeks under the old form of proceedings. When a party by his pleadings sets forth a merely legal title, he cannot on the trial be let into the proof of facts which show that, having an equity, he is entitled to a conveyance of the legal title. If he wants such relief he must prepare his pleadings with an eye to obtain it, and this must be done, whether he is seeking relief as plaintiff or defendant.'

But neither in a separate suit in a Federal court, nor in an answer to an action of ejectment in a State court, can the mere occupation of the demanded premises by plaintiffs or defendants, for the period prescribed by the statute of limitations of the State, be held to constitute a sufficient equity in their favor to control the legal title subsequently conveyed to others by the patent of the United States, without trenching upon the power of Congress in the disposition of the public lands. That power cannot be defeated or obstructed by any occupation of the premises before the issue of the patent, under State legislation, in whatever form or tribunal such occupation be asserted.

JUDGMENT REVERSED, and the cause REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO THIS OPINION.

Justices DAVIS and STRONG dissented.


text: Talk:Gibson v. Chouteau (80 U.S. 92)/Opinion of the Court


text:
Norwich Company v. Wright

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

On the 3d of March, 1851, Congress passed an act as follows the sections in brackets, i. e., 2d and 5th sections, not being specially important in this case, and inserted only to give a more full view of the act:

'SEC. 1. No owner or owners of any ship or vessel shall be subject or liable to answer for or make good to any one or more person or persons, any loss or damage which may happen to any goods or merchandise whatsoever, which shall be shipped, taken in, or put on board any such ship or vessel, by reason or by means of any fire happening to or on board the said ship or vessel, unless such fire is caused by the design or neglect of such owner or owners: Provided, That nothing in this act contained shall prevent the parties from making such contract as they please, extending or limiting the liability of ship-owners.

['SEC. 2. If any shipper or shippers of platina, gold, gold dust, silver, bullion, or other precious metals, coins, jewelry, bills of any bank or public body, diamonds or other precious stones, shall lade the same on board of any ship or vessel, without, at the time of such lading, giving to the master, agent, owner or owners of the ship or vessel receiving the same, a note in writing of the true character and value thereof, and have the same entered on the bill of lading therefor, the master and owner or owners of the said vessel shall not be liable, as carriers thereof, in any form or manner. Nor shall any such master or owners be liable for any such valuable goods beyond the value and according to the character thereof so notified and entered.]

'SEC. 3. The liability of the owner or owners of any ship or vessel, for any embezzlement, loss or destruction, by the master, officers, mariners, passengers, or any other person or persons, of any property, goods, or merchandise, shipped or put on board of such ship or vessel, or for any loss, damage or injury by collision, or for any act, matter or thing, loss, damage or forfeiture, done, occasioned or incurred, without the privity or knowledge of such owner or owners, shall in no case exceed the amount or value of the interest of such owner or owners respectively, in such ship or vessel, and her freight then pending.

'SEC. 4. If any such embezzlement, loss, or destruction shall be suffered by several freighters or owners of goods, wares, or merchandise, or any property whatever, on the same voyage, and the whole value of the ship or vessel, and her freight for the voyage, shall not be sufficient to make compensation to each of them, they shall receive compensation from the owner or owners of the ship or vessel, in proportion to their respective losses; and for that purpose the said freighters and owners of the property, and the owner or owners of the ship or vessel, or any of them, may take the appropriate proceedings in any court, for the purpose of apportioning the sum for which the owner or owners of the ship or vessel may be liable amongst the parties entitled thereto. And it shall be deemed a sufficient compliance with the requirements of this act, on the part of such owner or owners, if he or they shall transfer his or their interest in such vessel and freight, for the benefit of such claimants, to a trustee, to be appointed by any court of competent jurisdiction, to act as such trustee for the person or persons who may prove to be legally entitled thereto, from and after which transfer all claims and proceedings against the owner or owners shall cease.

['SEC. 5. The charterer or charterers of any ship or vessel, in case he or they shall man, victual, and navigate such vessel at his or their own expense, or by his or their own procurement, shall be deemed the owner or owners of such vessel within the meaning of this act; and such ship or vessel, when so chartered, shall be liable in the same manner as if navigated by the owner or owners thereof.]

'SEC. 6. Nothing in the preceding sections shall be construed to take away or affect the remedy to which any party may be entitled, against the master, officers, or mariners, for or on account of any embezzlement, injury, loss or destruction of goods, wares, merchandise, or other property, put on board any ship or vessel, or on account of any negligence, fraud or other malversation of such master, officers, or mariners, respectively; nor shall anything herein contained lessen or take away any responsibility to which any master or mariner of any ship of vessel may now by law be liable, notwithstanding such master or mariner may be an owner or part owner of the ship or vessel.'

This statute being in force, the schooner Van Vliet, on the night of 18th of April, 1866, making three or four knots an hour, and the steamer City of Norwich making twelve-the schooner's course being nearly at right angles to that of the steamer collided in Long Island Sound. The schooner sank, and both she and her cargo were lost. The steamer was greatly damaged by the blow, and, taking fire, sank also. Her cargo was lost, but she herself was subsequently raised and repaired at great expense.

Hereupon the owners of the schooner filed a libel in personam in the District Court for the District of Connecticut against the owners of the steamer. The owners of the steamer, by way of defence, stating that the steamer had on board 'a large and valuable freight belonging to various parties, much larger in value than the whole amount of the interest of the defendants in the said steamer and of her freight then pending,' and that the whole of it was lost, set up that they were not in fault; that the night was dark; that the schooner had no lights; that she was seen first by the head of her sails being lighted up by the steamer's lights.

These matters set up, however, were not proved.

On the contrary, although several witnesses who saw the light of the schooner after the collision, testified that the green or starboard light was dim, it was clearly proved that the light was there; and there was very strong evidence to show that it was burning brightly at the time of the collision, having been specially examined both before and after it. It appeared also that the officers of another steamer, the Electra, three-quarters of a mile in the rear of the City of Norwich and directly in her track, had seen the schooner a full mile off, and some time before the occurrence happened; they seeing her, as the pilot of the Electra testified, one point on their port-bow when the City of Norwich was dead ahead. This witness stated that the schooner was a mile off from the Electra when he saw her, and that this was two minutes before the collision; that the City of Norwich blew her whistle immediately after the collision; and that he discovered the schooner two or three minutes before he heard the sound.

The District Court, after interlocutory decree in favor of the libellants, and a reference to a master, and a report, decreed for the libellants, $19,975 for the schooner and $1921 for her cargo, with interest from the date of collision. Before the decree was passed, the respondents filed a petition wherein they alleged that proceedings in rem had been commenced in behalf of said parties against the steamer in the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of New York for the recovery of damages for the loss of the said cargo. They therefore prayed that they might be permitted to show by proper evidence the whole amount of damages sustained by all of said parties, including the libellants, and the value of the steamer and her freight then pending; and that the decree of the court might be so framed as to give the libellants such part or proportion of the amount of damages sustained by them as the value of steamer and freight bore to the whole amount of damages sustained by all parties by the collision. In reference to this last defence the libellants insisted:

1. That the act does not embrace injuries to other vessels by collision, but only injuries to, or loss of, cargo on board the offending vessel; and

2. That if it did embrace injuries by collision, the District Court, in that proceeding, had no power to give the respondents the relief which they sought.

The District Court held that cases of collision were within the act, but deemed the jurisdiction of that court insufficient to give relief. On appeal the Circuit Court held that cases of collision were not within the act. Hereupon the libellants appealed to this court. The appeal brought up all the questions in the cause.

Messrs. R. H. Huntley and C. R. Ingersoll, in support of the ruling below:

The act of 1851 does not apply in any of its sections to a loss that may happen to any other ship or vessel (than the owner's vessel), or to any goods, wares, or merchandise or other thing being on board of any other ship or vessel.

The words 'loss, damage, or injury by collision,' in the 3d section, are to be construed by the context, and relate only to the property to which the other branches of the section relate, that is, property 'shipped, or put on board such ship or vessel.'

The circumstances which led to the passage of the act were notorious. The packet ship Henry Clay, a large, costly, and nearly new ship, lying at the wharf in the port of New York, having nearly completed her lading and being bound for Europe, took fire from some cause and was burned, with a cargo already laden amounting in value to perhaps half a million of dollars. Her owners, being losers to a very large amount by the burning of the ship, were proceeded against by owners of cargo to compel payment to them of its value. It was strenuously insisted, by way of defence, that even without any such statutes as exist in England, the owners could not be charged upon the usual rule of liability of common carriers at common law. No proof of actual fault or negligence, except so far as the occurrence of the fire in the ship might warrant such inference, was given or attempted. The owners were held liable. Pending that action an effort was made to procure some legislation from Congress to soften the rigor of the rule declared in that case.

Some years before the burning of the Henry Clay, and in the night of the 13th of January, 1840, the steamboat Lexington was burned upon Long Island Sound, and the disaster was accompanied by a painful loss of life and the destruction of a large amount of property. Litigation ensued, and the owners were held liable by this court, A.D. 1848, in the New Jersey Steam Navigation Company v. The Merchants' Bank.

Both of these disasters and the hardships of the law against ship-owners as common carriers were commented upon in the debates which were had upon the act now in question. And an examination of those debates shows that it was the stringent rule of the common law which made common carriers of property liable for all losses (except such as were caused by the act of God or the public enemies), however free from actual fault or negligence, that was the subject of comment; and the apparent purpose, so far as it may be gathered from those debates, was to relax that rule. Nothing is said of injuries to other vessels, or the liability of ship-owners as principals for the tortious negligence of their ship-masters, officers, or crews, as their servants, by which the property of persons in no wise intrusted to them received injury. Nor was the rule of the common law which makes the master liable for the negligence of his servant in his business, the subject of review, criticism, or comment.

But passing to the act itself. It begins with a declaration that ship-owners shall not be liable for loss or damage by fire to any goods or merchandise whatever, shipped, taken in, or put on board, unless such fire is caused by the design or neglect of the owner. This has no other operation than to affect their relations as common carriers. The proviso to that section, that 'nothing in this act shall prevent the parties from making such contract as they please, extending or limiting the liability of ship-owners,' indicates that Congress believed that they were dealing with a question of liability which might be the subject of a contract, not with a liability for tortious negligence to parties who stood, and who could stand, in no relation of contract whatever with such owners. The proviso, though annexed to the first section, applies plainly to the whole act.

It may be conceded that the third section contains terms which, viewed apart from the residue of the act, are broad enough to include injury to other vessels by collision. But in the construction of statutes general words are restricted in their meaning by the subject-matter of the statute, the context and apparent intent; and in an enumeration of particulars followed by general terms, a restriction of the latter to cases or things ejusdem generis is according to settled rule. Thus in construing any particular clause or words of a statute it is especially necessary to examine and consider the whole statute, and gather if possible from the whole the intention of the legislature.

Now in this act other sections have sole reference to the relations of ship-owners as common carriers.

In the fourth section, the terms 'goods, wares, or merchandise, or any property whatever,' are equivalent to the words in the third section, 'any property, goods or merchandise,' and of the words, 'goods, wares, merchandise, or other property' in the sixth section; in each of which they relate solely to property of some kind put on board the vessel. And the phrase is added 'on the same voyage,' to confine the participation in the apportionment to the freighters for a single voyage, and not to permit the ship-owners to bring into the compensation losses sustained on prior or other voyages.

Our view has been affirmed in Massachusetts.

If it is asked, what then do the words 'for any loss, damage, or injury by collision,' 'or for any act, matter, or thing, loss, damage, or forfeiture, done, occasioned, or suffered,' mean? the answer is, that having the responsibility of carrier at the common law in view, a responsibility which subjected the ship-owner for every loss not caused by the act of God, or the public enemies, some such words were necessary to cover all the grounds of their liability as carriers. It was not enough to specify 'embezzlement, loss, or destruction by the master, officers, mariners, passengers, or other persons' Collision and many other acts and things might occasion loss or injury to property intrusted to them as carriers, for which but for these words they would be responsible to the full amount. The collision in the case now under consideration furnishes an illustration: for the City of Norwich having on board a valuable cargo, that cargo was lost by the collision, and that loss would be within the terms of the section. Not only so, collision and many other acts, matters, things, losses, damage, and injury might happen, be 'done, occasioned, or incurred,' without any fault or negligence either of the ship-owners or their masters or mariners, and be due solely to the fault or negligence of other persons, or be an accident in such sense that faulty negligence could be imputed to no one, and yet the ship-owners would be liable. These classes of cases are therefore provided for, and are clearly within the design and object of the statute. There is, therefore, a large field for the operation of all the words of the third section, without extending their meaning to an injury to another vessel or goods on board thereof.

II. The act is made up from the English statutes of 7 George II, 1734, 26 George III, 1786, and 53 George III, 1813, and from a Massachusetts statute of 1818, and a Maine statute of 1821. Many of its provisions are taken bodily from those statutes, and their language cannot be interpreted without recurring to the history of that legislation.

Now the decision in Boucher v. Lawson, that the ship-owner was answerable for an embezzlement of the cargo by the master, occasioned the statute 7 George II. This statute limited the owner's liability in respect of the wrongful acts of the master and mariners, such as 'embezzlement or other malversation.' 'This act,' said Buller, J., in Sutton v. Mitchell, 'is as strong as possible, and was meant to protect the owner against all treachery in the master or mariners.' It was passed for the protection of the ship-owner as a carrier. Freighters, and owners of property on board his vessel, but no one else, were affected by the limitation it placed on his liability.

The statute of 26 George III, 1786, followed the decision in Sutton v. Mitchell. By it the ship-owner's liability was now further limited, when his freighters lost their goods by robbery or fire on board his vessel. But if his vessel had by negligence set fire to another vessel and her cargo, the statute did not relieve him from his common law responsibility. It is also certain that his liability was not limited by this act in case of any loss happening, even to his own freighters, by collision.

The statute 53 George III, 1813, which was next passed, made important innovations. It specifically contemplated two descriptions of losses, one to the cargo laden on board the ship, and the other to a disconnected ship and her cargo. It also, for the first time, contemplated acts omitted to be done, 'neglects,' as well as acts to be done, without the fault or privity of the owner. Its main provision was as follows:

'That no person or persons who is, are, or shall be, owner or owners, a part owner or part owners, of any ship or vessel, shall be subject or liable to answer for or make good any loss or damage arising or taking place by reason of any act, neglect, matter, or thing done, omitted, or occasioned, without the fault or privity of such owner or owners, which may happen to any goods, wares, or merchandise, or other thing laden or put on board the same ship or vessel after the 1st of September, 1813, or which, after the said 1st September, 1813, may happen to any other ship or vessel, or to any goods, wares, or merchandise, or other thing, being in or on board of any other ship or vessel, further than the value of his or their ship or vessel, and the freight due, or to grow due, for and during the voyage, which may be in prosecution or contracted for, at the time of the happening of such loss or damage.'

No language can be clearer than that which it was here deemed necessary to employ in extending the limitation to other property than that on board the ship. It was not until after, and in full view of all this legislation by Great Britain, that any act was passed in this country limiting the common law liability of the ship-owner to any extent.

Stanutes of Massachusetts and Maine comprise all the legislation in the United States before the act of Congress of 1851. The act of 1851 is copied largely from them.

The statutes of Massachusetts and Maine ignore the act of 53 George III. Both relate only to the loss by embezzlement or other malversation of the master or mariners of the property on board the ship. The words which are copied into both of them from the English statute, 'any act, matter, or thing, damage or forfeiture done, occasioned or incurred by the said master or mariners without the privity or knowledge of such owner,' can relate, as they manifestly do in the English act, only to acts done affecting the property on board the ship.

III. But if our view in all this matter is wrong, and the act of 1851 has the scope claimed for it on the other side, there remains the point made by the District Court, to wit, that that court cannot give relief. It is obvious that the action asked for is the action of a court of equity. But our District Courts are not courts of equity.

Moreover this proceeding is not an 'appropriate proceeding' to enforce an apportionment. The defendants do not prove that they have paid or offered to pay to any one the value of their vessel; but only that certain undertermined claims for damages subsist against them. Where is the power to convert this simple proceeding between two persons into a proceeding for the condemnation of property and the apportionment of a fund in which many other persons living in various jurisdictions may be interested?

Messrs. G. B. Hibbard, E. H. Owen, and J. Halsey, contra.

Mr. Justice BRADLEY delivered the opinion of the court.

title: Norwich Company v. Wright


text: Talk:Norwich Company v. Wright

title: Talk:Norwich Company v. Wright


text:
Norwich Company v. Wright/Opinion of the Court

The appeal brings up all the questions in the cause. The first one is which vessel was in fault. And on this point we are satisfied from an examination of the evidence in the case with the finding of the District and Circuit Courts as to the responsibility of the steamboat for the happening of the collision. There is very strong evidence to show that the schooner's light was burning brightly, it being specially examined both before and after the collision; and that the vessel could be seen, and was seen, by another steamer a full mile off just before the collision happened. The Electra was three-fourths of a mile in rear of the City of Norwich, directly in her track, and her officers saw the schooner some time before the occurrence. They saw her one point on their port bow when the City of Norwich was dead ahead. Now, the course of the schooner was nearly at right angles to that of the two steamers. If, therefore, she was one point on the port bow of the Electra, when a mile distant, it required but little calculation to show that at that time she must have been between an eighth and a quarter of a mile from the line of direction in which the two steamers were sailing. As she was making three or four knots an hour, and as the City of Norwich was making twelve, it must have taken the schooner, after this, two or three minutes to get up to the line of direction of the City of Norwich, during which time the latter would traverse nearly half a mile. So that when the schooner was first seen from the Electra she must have been half a mile distant from the City of Norwich, and, therefore, the theory of the claimants that she was only to be seen by reason of the lights from the City of Norwich shining on her sails, falls to the ground. If, therefore, she was seen from the Electra, more than a mile distant, she ought to have been seen from the City of Norwich, which was three-fourths of a mile nearer to her. All the circumstances mentioned by the pilot of the Electra corroborate these conclusions. He says that the schooner was a mile off from the Electra when he saw her, and that this was 'two minutes before the collision.' He adds that the steamer City of Norwich blew her whistle immediately after the collision, and that he discovered the schooner two or three minutes before he heard the whistle. This evidence is adverted to, because it is of that circumstantial nature which often demonstrates the truth more strongly than the most positive testimony. It may be added that it is corroborated in many particulars by other evidence in the cause. As to her lights, it is admitted, or at least clearly proved, that the schooner had a green light in the proper place; but several witnesses say it was a dim light. It is proper to observe that nearly all those who say this only saw the light after the collision, the shock of which may have temporarily affected the brilliancy of the lamp. But, without pursuing the subject further, it is sufficient to say, that in our opinion the evidence is clear that the steamer was in fault in not seeing the schooner in time to prevent a collision. It was her duty to keep out of the way of the schooner; she was not only propelled by steam, but the schooner was beating against a head wind. So that every circumstance in the case cast the duty of avoiding a collision upon the steamer. Her liability is clear.

The next question is, whether the owners of the steamer are entitled to the benefits of the act of 1851, limiting the liability of ship-owners to the amount of their interest in the vessel and her freight; and, if so, whether they can have relief in the District Court in the proceedings instituted against them. This involves the true construction of that act; and, to reach this, it may be useful to take a cursory view of previous legislation on the subject in other countries as well as in this.

The history of the limitation of liability of ship-owners is matter of common knowledge. The learned opinion of Judge Ware in the case of The Rebecca, leaves little to be desired on the subject. He shows that it originated in the maritime law of modern Europe; that whilst the civil, as well as the common, law made the owner responsible to the whole extent of damage caused by the wrongful act or negligence of the master or crew, the maritime law only made them liable (if personally free from blame) to the amount of their interest in the ship. So that, if they surrendered the ship, they were discharged.

Grotius, in his law of War and Peace, says that men would be deterred from investing in ships if they thereby incurred the apprehension of being rendered liable to an indefinite amount by the acts of the master, and therefore, in Holland, they had never observed the Roman law on that subject, but had a regulation that the ship-owners should be bound no farther than the value of their ship and freight. The maritime law, as codified in the celebrated French Ordonnance de la Marine, in 1681, expressed the rule thus: 'The proprietors of vessels shall be responsible for the acts of the master, but they shall be discharged by abandoning the ship and freight.' Valin, in his commentary on this passage, after specifying certain engagements of the master which are binding on the owners, without any limit of responsibility, such as contracts for the benefit of the vessel, made during the voyage (except contracts of bottomry), says: 'With these exceptions it is just that the owner should not be bound for the acts of the master, except to the amount of the ship and freight. Otherwise he would run the risk of being ruined by the bad faith or negligence of his captain, and the apprehension of this would be fatal to the interests of navigation. It is quite sufficient that he be exposed to the loss of his ship and of the freight, to make it his interest, independently of any goods he may have on board, to select a reliable captain.' Pardessus says: 'The owner is bound civilly for all delinquencies committed by the captain within the scope of his authority, but he may discharge himself therefrom by abandoning the ship and freight; and, if they are lost, it suffices for his discharge, to surrender all claims in respect of the ship and its freight,' such as insurance, &c.

The same general doctrine is laid down by many other writers on maritime law. So that it is evident that, by this law, the owner's liability was coextensive with his interest in the vessel and its freight, and ceased by his abandonment and surrender of these to the parties sustaining loss.

This rule, to a partial extent, was adopted in England by the act of 7 George II, passed in 1734. By this act, after reciting that it was of the greatest consequence to the kingdom to promote the increase of the number of ships, and to prevent any discouragement to merchants and others from being interested and concerned therein, it was enacted that no ship-owner should be responsible for loss or damage to goods on board the ship by embezzlement of the master or mariners, without his privity or knowledge, further than the value of the ship and her appurtenances, and the freight due thereon for the voyage; and, if greater damage occurred, it should be averaged among those who sustained it. By 26 George III (1786) this limitation of liability was extended to robbery and to losses in which the master and mariners had no part, and liability for loss by fire was entirely removed, as well as liability for loss of gold and jewelry, unless its nature and value were disclosed. By 53 George III (1813), the liability limitation of ship-owners was still further extended to cases of loss by negligence of the master and mariners, and to damage done to other ships and their cargoes, including of course, cases of collision. In the first two of these statutes it was provided that if the loss or damage fell on more than one party, either the parties injured or the ship-owners might file a bill in equity to ascertain the whole amount of loss on the one side and the value of the offending vessel and her freight on the other, so as to have a proper distribution of the latter, pro rata, amongst those who sustained damage. The last statute gave this remedy to the ship-owners alone, it being for their benefit and intended to prevent a multiplicity of suits against them. But they were obliged to pay the value of the vessel and her freight into court, or to give security for the amount, and to acknowledge their liability, inasmuch as the court of chancery would not investigate the question of liability. That being done, they were entitled to a stay of all suits brought against them for damages.

Under these statutes the English courts, since the passage of the act of 53 George III (the question does not seem to have arisen before), have held that the value of the ship and freight was to be estimated as it stood immediately prior to the injury, so that if the ship were lost by the occurrence which caused it, or at any subsequent period before the completion of the voyage, the ship-owners were still liable for that value. The statutes contained no provision for a surrender and assignment of the ship and freight, but only for paying their value into court. These decisions, it will be seen, create an important distinction between the English statute law and the maritime law.

Statutes similar in principle to the English acts were passed in 1818 and 1821 by the legislatures of Massachusetts and Maine, differing slightly in form. They limited the liability of the ship-owner to the amount of his interest in the ship and freight for any embezzlement or damage occasioned by the master or mariners without his privity or knowledge, and provided that if the loss or damage were sustained by several persons, and should be more than the value of the offending ship and its freight, either the persons so injured or the ship-owner, or both, might file a bill in equity for discovery and payment of the amount for which the owner might be liable, among those entitled thereto.

In 1841 the law of France was amended so as to operate still further to the advantage of the ship-owner, by enabling him to obtain, by abandonment of ship and freight, a complete discharge, not only from responsibility for the acts and defaults of the captain, but also for all his engagements and contracts relative to the ship and the voyage.

In the light of all this previous legislation, the act of Congress was passed in 1851. As we have seen, by the maritime, law, the liability of the ship-owner was limited to his interest in the ship and freight for all torts of the master and seamen, whether by collisions or anything else, and sometimes even for the master's contracts; and his liability was so strictly limited that he was discharged by giving up that interest, or by the vessel being lost on the voyage, and the maritime courts found no difficulty in carrying this law into execution. By the English law, as constituted by acts of Parliament, the owner's liability was limited to the amount and value of ship and freight at the time of injury, for damages to cargo and damages to other vessels by collision; but from the restricted jurisdiction of the English admiralty courts, in order to get complete relief where there were many persons suffering damage, the ship-owners were obliged to resort to a bill in chancery. The laws of Maine and Massachusetts seem to have limited the ship-owner's liability in cases of damage to cargo alone; and for complete relief, they refer him to a proceeding in equity.

The act of Congress seems to have been drawn with direct reference to all these previous laws, and with them before us, its language seems to be not difficult of construction. The first section exempts ship-owners from loss or damage by fire to goods on board the ship, unless caused by their own neglect. The second exempts the owners and master from liability for loss or damage to jewelry, precious metals, or money put on board the ship, unless its character and value be disclosed in writing. These two provisions were substantially contained in the English law of 1786. The third section, which is the one in question, is in the following words:

'The liability of the owner or owners of any ship or vessel, for any embezzlement, loss, or destruction, by the master, officers, mariners, passengers, or any other person or persons, of any property, goods, or merchandise, shipped or put on board of such ship or vessel, or for any loss, damage, or injury by collision, or for any act, matter, or thing, loss, damage, or forfeiture, done, occasioned, or incurred, without the privity or knowledge of such owner or owners, shall in no case exceed the amount or value of the interest of such owner or owners respectively, in such ship or vessel, and her freight then pending.'

Here the owner's liability is limited to the amount or value of his interest in the vessel and freight, but the section does not define at what time that interest is to be taken. The limitation embraces not only loss or damage happening to goods on board, but 'any loss, damage, or injury by collision.' The latter claim is independent of the preceding one. It cannot be read to mean, 'loss or injury [to the goods on board] by collision,' without an unauthorized interpolation. If it had said 'loss, damage, or injury [thereto] by collision,' it would have been confined to the goods on board the vessel. But it does not so read. The section as constructed limits the ship-owners' liability in three classes of damage or wrong-happening without their privity, and by the fault or neglect of the master or other persons on board, viz.: 1st, damage to goods on board; 2d, damage by collision to other vessels and their cargoes; 3d, any other damage or forfeiture done or incurred.

In view of the fact that the limited liability of ship-owners was, by the general maritime law, extended to all acts of the master except contracts for the benefit of the ship, and in most places even to these; and of the fact, that the English statutes expressly extended it to cases of collision as well as to injuries to cargoes; we see no reason why the fair natural construction should not be given to the act of 1851, which makes an equally broad application of the rule, and there is nothing in the reason of the thing that should lead us to evade such a construction. The great object of the law was to encourage ship-building and to induce capitalists to invest money in this branch of industry. Unless they can be induced to do so, the shipping interests of the country must flag and decline. Those who are willing to manage and work ships are generally unable to build and fit them. They have plenty of hardiness and personal daring and enterprise, but they have little capital. On the other hand, those who have capital, and invest it in ships, incur a very large risk in exposing their property to the hazards of the sea, and to the management of seafaring men, without making them liable for additional losses and damage to an indefinite amount. How many enterprises in mining, manufacturing, and internal improvements would be utterly impracticable if capitalists were not encouraged to invest in them through corporate institutions by which they are exempt from personal liability, or from liability except to a limited extent? The public interests require the investment of capital in ship-building, quite as much as in any of these enterprises. And if there exist good reasons for exempting innocent ship-owners from liability, beyond the amount of their interest, for loss or damage to goods carried in their vessels, precisely the same reasons exist for exempting them to the same extent from personal liability in cases of collision. In the one case as in the other, their property is in the hands of agents whom they are obliged to employ.

We are, therefore, of opinion that the respondents were entitled to the benefit of the act of 1851, as against the claim of the libellants.

But the claim of the libellants alone is not alleged to be greater than the value of the steamer and her freight. The libellants, therefore, would be entitled to receive the whole amount of this damage, if they were the only persons who sustained damage, or if, by reason of the nature of their claim, their lien was superior to that of the owners of the cargo lost on the steamer. Liens for reparation for wrong done are superior to any prior liens for money borrowed, wages, pilotage, &c. But they stand on an equality with regard to each other if they arise from the same cause. We think, therefore, that the lien of the libellants for the loss of the schooner and her cargo, arising from the collision, is on an equality with the lien for the loss of the cargo of the steamer, from the same cause. This being so, the case for the application of the statute arises; for it is alleged by the libellants that the damage to the schooner and her cargo, together with the damage arising from the loss of the steamer's cargo, greatly exceeds the value of the steamer and her freight for the voyage.

We are, therefore, brought to the question whether the District Court had jurisdiction, under the fourth section of the act, to grant the respondents relief by any proceeding to apportion the damages.

As we have seen, it is declared by the third section that the liability of ship-owners for loss or damage, &c., shall not exceed the amount or value of their interest in the ship and her freight then pending. And by the fourth section it is provided:

'If any such embezzlement, loss, or destruction shall be suffered by several freighters or owners of goods, wares, or merchandise, or any property whatever, on the same voyage, and the whole value of the ship or vessel, and her freight for the voyage, shall not be sufficient to make compensation to each of them, they shall receive compensation from the owner or owners of the ship or vessel, in proportion to their respective losses, and for that purpose the said freighters and owners of the property, and the owner or owners of the ship or vessel, or any of them, may take the appropriate proceedings in any court, for the purpose of apportioning the sum for which the owner or owners of the ship or vessel may be liable amongst the parties entitled thereto. And it shall be deemed a sufficient compliance with the requirements of this act, on the part of such owner or owners, if he or they shall transfer his or their interest in such vessel and freight, for the benefit of such claimants, to a trustee, to be appointed by any court of competent jurisdiction, to act as such trustee for the person or persons who may prove to be legally entitled thereto, from and after which transfer all claims and proceedings against the owner or owners shall cease.'

The act does not state what court shall be resorted to, nor what proceedings shall be taken; but that the parties, or any of them, may take 'the appropriate proceedings in any court, for the purpose of apportioning the sum for which, & c.' Now, no court is better adapted than a court of admiralty to administer precisely such relief. It happens every day that the proceeds of a vessel, or other fund, is brought into that court to be distributed amongst those whom it may concern. Claimants are called in by monition to present and substantiate their respective claims; and the fund is divided and distributed according to the respective liens and rights of all the parties. Congress might have invested the Circuit Courts of the United States with the jurisdiction of such cases by bill in equity, but it did not. It is also evident that the State courts have not the requisite jurisdiction. Unless, therefore, the District Courts themselves can administer the law, we are reduced to the dilemma of inferring that the legislature has passed a law which is incapable of execution. This is never to be done if it can be avoided. We have no doubt that the District Courts, as courts of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, have jurisdiction of the matter; and this court undoubtedly has the power to make all needful rules and regulations for facilitating the course of proceeding.

It is to be observed, however, that if the ship-owner desires the intervention of the court, it will not be sufficient for him simply to ask for a pro rata reduction of the libellants' damages, without, in some manner, tendering the corresponding pro rata compensation to which other parties, whose claims he sets up against the libellants, are entitled. Otherwise, he might reduce the libellants' claim without ever being obliged to respond to the other parties. The libellants are, in fact, directly interested in the existence or non-existence of the other claims for damage. If these are established, they must suffer an abatement; if not, they will be entitled to recover their entire damage. It follows, therefore, that the ship-owner must either admit the claims for damage which he thus sets up, or must ask the court to have them adjudicated. In the English practice, as the court of chancery does not investigate demands in admiralty, it required the complainant (the ship-owner) to admit his liability in advance. This is, perhaps, not necessary in an admiralty court. But it is, at least, necessary that proceedings should be instituted for ascertaining the coexisting claims which are to antagonize and operate as a means of reducing the claim of the libellants.

But in order to proceed regularly the court must have possession of the limited liability fund-that is, the proceeds or value of the ship and freight. It cannot distribute a fund of which it has not the possession. If the vessel were libelled, and either sold or appraised, and her value deposited in court, this sum, together with the amount of the freight (when proper to be added), would constitute the res, or fund for distribution. The case would then be free from difficulty. But the present case is a libel in personam in the District of Connecticut, and the steamer has, in fact, been libelled in the Eastern District of New York, and she, or her value, is detained there. The respondents have not paid, or offered to pay, the fund into the District Court for the District of Connecticut. Nor do they allege that they have applied to the District Court for the Eastern District of New York, where the fund is, to apportion the damages incurred. Had they done this, that court might have acquired jurisdiction of the case, and made it the duty of the District Court of Connecticut, on being duly certified of the fact, to suspend further proceedings and leave the libellants to present their claim in the court of New York.

The proper course of proceeding for obtaining the benefit of the act would seem to be this: When a libel for damage is filed, either against the ship in rem or the owners in personam, the latter (whether with or without an answer to the merits) should file a proper petition for an apportionment of the damages according to the statute, and should pay into court (if the vessel or its proceeds is not already there), or give due stipulation for, such sum as the court may, by proper inquiry, find to be the amount of the limited liability, or else surrender the ship and freight by assigning them to a trustee in the manner pointed out in the fourth section. Having done this, the ship-owner will be entitled to a monition against all persons to appear and intervene pro interesse suo, and to an order restraining the prosecution of other suits. If an action should be brought in a State court the ship-owner should file a libel in admiralty, with a like surrender or deposit of the fund, and either plead the fact in bar in the State court or procure an order from the District Court to restrain the further prosecution of the suit. The court having jurisdiction of the case, under and by virtue of the act of Congress, would have the right to enforce its jurisdiction and to ascertain and determine the rights of the parties. For aiding parties in this behalf, and facilitating proceedings in the District Courts, we have prepared some rules which will be announced at an early day.

The difficulty with the respondents in this case is, that they have not taken the proper steps, in the proper court, to enable them to avail themselves of the benefit of the act. The want of any uniform practice on the subject may, perhaps, be a sufficient excuse for not having done this. If proceedings are still pending in the Eastern District of New York it is not yet too late to initiate proper proceedings there for making an apportionment in the case. Meantime the decree already made must be allowed to stand at least for the purpose of showing the respondents' liability to the libellants, and the actual amount of damage which the latter have sustained, as the basis of an apportionment. The court below will be instructed to suspend further proceedings on the decree until reasonable time has been given to the respondents to take the proper steps in the District Court, where the fund is, for settling and closing up the claims of all parties interested therein.

This view of the case renders it necessary to determine another question arising in the cause for the guidance of the parties and the courts below. This is, whether the respondents, in order to avail themselves of the benefits of the act of 1851, may surrender the steamer itself, and any freight that may have accrued, under the fourth section of the act, without paying into court anything further, or whether they are bound to pay, or give security for, the value of the steamer at the time of the collision, and of the freight for the voyage. It will be necessary to know this at the first step in the proceedings. The probability is, that no freight ever actually accrued, as the cargo was never delivered in New York. Still, if the construction given by the English courts to their statute is to be followed, it matters not whether freight actually accrued or not. The owners would still be liable for what would have accrued had the voyage terminated prosperously; and it also matters not whether the steamer were lost or greatly injured. The owners would be liable for her value immediately prior to the collision.

But it will be observed that the act of Congress contains a provision for the ship-owner to discharge himself, as in the maritime law, by giving up the vessel and her freight. This provision is not contained in any of the English or State statutes, and could not have been inserted in the act of Congress without direct reference to the like provision of the maritime codes. Could it have been inserted for any other purpose than to adopt the rule of that code? This is a question of much interest and importance.

The Supreme Court of Massachusetts, in a case much considered, adopted the English rule, and held that a ship-owner, where the ship is lost, cannot have the benefit of the act, allowing him to relieve himself from responsibility by abandoning the ship and freight, because he cannot comply with its terms by assigning them. But surely, if the privilege exists when the vessel has been damaged at all (as it would seem that it must, if the act is to have any meaning), how can it cease to exist by any amount or degree of damage? And if the privilege exists, as long as there is anything left of the vessel to be transferred, it cannot cease when she is entirely destroyed. That would be to stand upon too nice a point of logic in giving a reasonable and practical construction to a statute. It would be to punish the unfortunate ship-owner, because his loss is total instead of partial. The late Judge Kane, of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, in the case of Watson v. Marks, held that the act had adopted the maritime rule, and his reasoning on the subject is very forcible and satisfactory. We do not hesitate to express our decided conviction, that the rule of the maritime law on this subject, so far as relates to torts, was intended to be adopted by the act of 1851.

It is objected, however, that the fourth section of the act does not embrace cases of damage by collision, even though they are included in the third section. But an examination of the fourth section will show that its language is very broad. Coming immediately after the provisions of the third section, which, as we have seen, provide for all kinds of loss, damage, and destruction (damage by collision included), it says, that if any such embezzlement, loss, or destruction shall be suffered by several freighters or owners of goods, wares, or merchandise, or any property whatever, on the same voyage, and the whole value of the ship or vessel, and her freight for the voyage, shall not be sufficient, &c. Surely this language is broad enough to cover damage by collision, as well as other damages. And the close connection and dependency of the two sections, require a construction to be given to the one coextensive with that given to the other, if it can possibly be done without violence to the language.

The decree of the Circuit Court will be affirmed, with directions to suspend further proceedings thereon until the respondents (the appellants in this court), shall have had such reasonable time as the Circuit Court may deem sufficient for taking the proper proceedings in the District Court for the Eastern District of New York, for apportioning the damage sustained by the various parties in this case. The costs in this court and the courts below to be equally divided between the libellants and the respondents. Also, process against the stipulators to be suspended to abide the event of the suit.

Mr. Justice STRONG was not present at the argument in this case, and took no part in the judgment.


text: Talk:Norwich Company v. Wright/Opinion of the Court