Richards v. Mackall
Decision Date | 09 January 1888 |
Citation | 8 S.Ct. 437,124 U.S. 183,31 L.Ed. 396 |
Parties | RICHARDS v. MACKALL |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
[Statement of Case from pages 183-187 intentionally omitted] W. B. Webb and Enoch Totten, for appellant.
W. Willoughby, for appellee.
Mr. Justice HARLAN, after stating the facts in the foregoing language, delivered the opinion of the court.
1. Is appellee entitled to relief in a court of equity in respect to the sale of June 13, 1870? In Badger v. Badger, 2 Wall. 95, it was said that a party who makes an appeal to the conscience of the chancellor should 'set forth in his bill specifically what were the impediments to an earlier prosecution of his claim; how he came to be so long ignorant of his rights, and the means used by the respondent to fraudulently keep him in ignorance; and how and when he first came to a knowledge of the matters alleged in his bill; otherwise, the chancellor may justly refuse to consider his case, on his own showing, without inquiring whether there is a demurrer or a formal plea of the statute of limitations in his answer.' So in Sullivan v. Railroad Co., 94 U. S. 811: In the latter case, it was said that equity would sometimes refuse relief where a shorter time than that prescribed by the statute had elapsed without suit. See, also, Hume v. Beal, 17 Wall. 336; Marsh v. Whitmore, 21 Wall. 184, 185; Hayward v. Bank, 96 U. S. 617; Speidel v. Henrici, 120 U. S. 377, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 610.
These principles, applied to the present case, lead to a reversal, upon the ground that the appellee, upon his own showing, has been guilty of gross laches in applying for relief. When the sale to Richards was made the appellee had in his possession a tax deed to himself, conveying the legal title to the whole of lot 7. While h says he was advised by counsel that that deed was of no value, and for that reason he did not put it upon record, he fails to suggest, in his pleadings, any reason why it was not sufficient to invest him with the legal title to the premises. The evidence fairly justifies the conclusion that he was induced, by reason of his embarrassed financial condition, to keep it from record, in order thereby to confuse the title to the property, and increase the difficulties in the way of creditors reaching it for his debts. Be that as it may, and assuming that the tax deed was invalid, the appellee having gone into possession of lot 7, and improved it, with the consent of his father, and under...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Just v. Idaho Canal & Improvement Co., Ltd.
... ... 1067; Mullan's Admr. v. Carper , 37 ... W.Va. 215, 16 S.E. 527; Parker v. Dacres , 130 U.S ... 43, 9 S.Ct. 433, 32 L.Ed. 848; Richards v. Mackall , ... 124 U.S. 183, 8 S.Ct. 437, 31 L.Ed. 396; Horr v ... French , 99 Iowa 73, 68 N.W. 581; Bryant v ... Groves , 42 W.Va. 10, 24 ... ...
-
Oregon Short Line Railraod Co. v. Quigley
... ... Mullen's Admrs. v. Carper, 37 W.Va. 215, 16 S.E ... 527; Parker v. Dacres, 130 U.S. 43, 9 S.Ct. 433, 32 ... L.Ed. 848; Richards v. Mackall, 124 U.S. 183, 8 ... S.Ct. 437, 31 L.Ed. 396; Horr v. Franch, 99 Iowa 73, ... 68 N.W. 581; Bryant v. Groves, 42 W.Va. 10, 24 S.E ... ...
-
Patterson v. Hewitt
...553, 12 Sup. Ct. 568, 36 L. Ed. 259; Hanner v. Moulton, 138 U. S. 486, 494, 11 Sup. Ct. 408, 34 L. Ed. 1032; Richards v. Mackall, 124 U. S. 183, 189, 8 Sup. Ct. 437, 31 L. Ed. 396; Robers v. Railroad Co., 158 U. S. 1, 11, 15 Sup. Ct. 756, 39 L. Ed. 873. The authorities above cited, it will ......
-
Horse Creek Conservation District v. Lincoln Land Company
...Van Tassell Company v. Cheyenne, supra; Hereford Ranch v. Hammond Packing Company, 33 Wyo. 14. A plea of laches is unnecessary. Richards v. Mackall, 124 U.S. 183; American Mining Company v. Mining Company 104 P. 525; Taylor v. Slater, 21 R. I. 104, 41 A. 1001; Coon v. Seymour (Wis.) 37 N.W.......