Bardon v. Land River Imp Co

• Decision Date: 25 March 1895
• Docket Number: No. 138,138
• Citation: 15 S.Ct. 650,157 U.S. 327,39 L.Ed. 719
• Parties: BARDON v. LAND & RIVER IMP. CO
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

157 U.S. 327

15 S.Ct. 650

39 L.Ed. 719

BARDON

v LAND & RIVER IMP. CO.

No. 138.

March 25, 1895.

This was a bill in equity, filed, under section 3186 of the Revised Statutes of the state of Wisconsin, by the Land & River Improvement Company, a corporation of New Jersey, against Thomas Bardon, a citizen of the state of Wisconsin, in the circuit court of the United States for the Western district of Wisconsin, to have certain conveyances declared void, and to quiet the title to ths S. E. 1/4 of section 28, township 49 N., range 14 W., in Douglas county, Wis.

The section in question is as follows:

'Sec. 3186. Any person having the possession and legal title to land may institute an action against any other person setting up a claim thereto, and if the plaintiff shall be able to substantiate his title to such land, the defendant shall be adjudged to release to the plaintiff all claim thereto, and to pay the costs of such action, unless the defendant shall, by answer, disclaim all title to such land, and give a release thereof to the plaintiff in which case he shall recover costs, unless the court shall otherwise order. It shall be sufficient to aver in the complaint in such action the nature and extent of the plaintiff's estate in such land, describing it as accurately as may be, and that he is in possession thereof, and that the defendant makes some claim thereto, and to demand judgment that the plaintiff's claim be established against any claim of the defendant, and that he be forever barred against having or claiming any right or title to the land, adverse to the plaintiff; and the defendant, if he do not so disclaim and release, may answer any matter in denial of the plaintiff's claim, title, or possession, or which, if proved, will establish his own, and judgment shall be rendered according to the rights of the parties. And any person not having such title or possession, but being the owner and holder of any lien or incumbrance on land, shall also have the same right of action as the owner in fee in possession, to test the legality and validity of any other claim, lien or incumbrance on such land or any part thereof.'

Complainant purchased the land of one Hiram Hayes, and paid him therefor $6,400, June 2, 1883, and took a warranty deed of conveyance and had paid the taxes since that time, and expended on the land up to 1890, including the taxes of 1889, something over $12,500. Hayes derived title through two tax deeds issued to him, one dated September 5, 1870, for the taxes of 1866, recorded September 7, 1870; and the other issued January 1, 1882, for the taxes of 1877, and recorded January 3, 1882. The original owner of the land was one James D. Ray, who conveyed it to James Bardon by release or quitclaim on March 6, 1878; and James Bardon subsequently conveyed it to Thomas Bardon, the defendant, for a nominal consideration. James Bardon testifies that he paid Ray for his quitclaim deed $100, 'and perhaps more,' and conveyed his interest to Thomas without money consideration. The case turned upon the validity of these tax deeds or either of them; and the circuit court held that the deed dated September 5, 1870, was valid; that the statute of limitations had run upon it; that the original owner was barred; and that complainant's title was good. A decree was accordingly entered for complainant, to review which this appeal is prosecuted. The opinion of the circuit court will be found in 45 Fed. 706 W. C. Silverthorn, M. A. Hurley, and T. C. Ryan, for appellant.

John C. Spooner and A. L. Sanborn, for appellee.

Mr. Chief Justice FULLER, after stating the facts in the foregoing language, delivered the opinion of the court.

We remarked in Gormley v. Clark, 134 U. S. 338,348, 10 Sup. Ct. 554, that while the rule was well settled that remedies in the courts of the United States atc ommon law or in equity, according to the essential character of the case, are uncontrolled in that particular by the practice of the state courts, yet an enlargement of equitable rights by state statutes may be administered by the circuit courts of the United States, as well as by the courts of the state; and when the case is one of a remedial proceeding, essentially of an equitable character, there can be no objection to the exercise of the jurisdiction. Broderick Will Case, 21 Wall. 503, 520; Holland v. Challen, 110 U. S. 15, 25, 3 Sup. Ct. 495; Frost v. Spitley, 121 U. S. 552, 557, 7 Sup. Ct. 1129.

Notwithstanding the statute may have enlarged the ordinary equitable action to quiet title and to remove a cloud, the circuit court had jurisdiction to award the relief prayed if the bill were properly brought under the section in question; and, as that section provided that any person having the possession and legal title might institute the suit, we perceive no reason why the complainant could not, if it were in possession, as is conceded, and had obtained the legal title through either of the tax deeds, a matter to be hereafter examined.

Section 35 of chapter 22 of the General Laws of Wisconsin of 1859, re-enacted as section 1197 of the Revised Statutes of 1878 (Gen. Laws Wis. 1859, p. 30; Rev. St. Wis. 1878, p. 383, c. 50), provided that the grantee in a tax deed might, at any time within three years after its date, commence an action against the owner or any person claiming under him for the purpose of barring such owner or his grantees from all right, title, interest, or claim in the land conveyed; and it is argued that that remedy was exclusive, and, not having been availed of by Hayes, that complainant cannot maintain this suit. But there is nothing in the statute to show that the remedy existing during three years after the date of the tax deed was intended to contract the jurisdiction and practice in equity, independently of statute, in respect of bills to quiet title, or to exclude the general remedy given by section 3186,—a remedy existing in Wisconsin since 1858 (section 29, c. 141, Rev. St. 1858),—in favor of a person having the legal title and actual possession, though that legal title depended on a tax deed. Stridde v. Saroni, 21 Wis. 173; Grimmer v. Sumner, Id. 179; Wals v. Grosvenor, 31 Wis. 681; Grignon v. Black, 76 Wis. 674, 45 N. W. 122, 938.

Nor can we regard the position of appellant that this suit was barred under section 22 of chapter 138 of the Revised Statutes of 1858 as tenable. That section provided that 'an action for relief not hereinbefore provided for, must be commenced within ten years after the cause of action shall have accrued,' and the enumerated actions apparently did not include this suit. But this alleged limitation was not set up in the answer or the question raised in any way, so far as appears, in the circuit court, and, if so, comes too late. And, apart from that, actual possession was not taken until October 13, 1889, and the bill was filed November 1, 1889.

We proceed, then, to the objections urged to the validity of the tax deed of September 5, 1870, and these must be disposed of, in accordance with the interpretation of the statues of Wisconsin, by the highest judicial tribunal of that state. As was observed in Lewis v. Monson, 151 U. S. 545, 549, 14 Sup. Ct. 424: 'No question is more clearly a matter of local law than one arising under the tax laws. Tax proceedings are carried on by the state for the purpose of collecting its revenue, and the various steps which shall be taken in such proceedings, the force and effect to be given to any act of the taxing officers, the results to follow the nonpayment of taxes, and the form efficacy of the tax deed, are all subjects which the state has power to prescribe, and peculiarly and vitally affecting its well being. The determination of any questions affecting them is a matter primarily belonging to the courts of the state, and the national tribunals universally follow their rulings except in cases where it is claimed that some right protected by the feedral constitution has been invaded.'

Under the laws of Wisconsin, the owner of land sold for taxes might, at any time within three years from date of the certificate of sale, redeem the same in the manner prescribed, and in like manner redeem at any time before the tax deed executed upon such sale was recorded. Gen. Laws Wis. 1859, c. 22, §§ 18, 19; Rev. St. 1878, § 1165.

By section 25, c. 22, of the Laws of 1859, carried forward into section 1176 of the Revised Statutes of 1878, it was provided that the tax deed, 'duly witnessed and acknowledged, shall be prima facie evidence of the regularity of all the proceedings, from the valuation of the land by the assessor inclusive, up to the execution of the deed, and may be recorded with like effect as other conveyances of land.'

Section 5 of chapter 138 of the Laws of 1861 provided that no action should be commenced by the former owner to recover possession of land which had been sold and conveyed for nonpayment of taxes or to avoid the deed, unless the action should be commenced within three years next after the recording of the deed. Rev. St. 1878, § 1188.

By section 32 of chapter 22 of the Laws of 1859 it was enacted that no action should be maintained by the grantee in a tax deed or any one claiming under him to recover the possession of the land described therein, unless such action should be brought within three years next after the date of the recording of such deed, or unless such grantee or those claiming under him shall have paid the taxes assessed on such land for five years next after the date of such deed, or unless such grantee or those claiming under him had been in actual, continual possession of said land, claiming title, for three years previous to the expiration of five years next after the date of such deed, Rev. St. 1878, § 1187.

The rule may be accepted as thoroughly settled by the decisions of the supreme court of Wisconsin that when a tax deed is in due form, and recorded in the proper office, and the lands...