Bernier v. Bernier, No. 102

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtFIELD
Citation147 U.S. 242,37 L.Ed. 152,13 S.Ct. 244
PartiesBERNIER et al. v. BERNIER et al
Docket NumberNo. 102
Decision Date16 January 1893

147 U.S. 242
13 S.Ct. 244
37 L.Ed. 152
BERNIER et al.

v.

BERNIER et al.

No. 102.
January 16, 1893.

Suit in equity in the circuit court of Chippewa county, Mich., brought by Calixte D. Bernier, George E. Bernier, Louis G. Bernier, Samuel F. Bernier, and William Bernier against edward Bernier, Matilda Bernier Endriss, and John H. Goff, to have a trust declared in a homestead right, a patent for which had issued to some of the defendants as minor heirs; complainants being heirs of full age at the death of the homesteader. The trial court entered a decree for complainants, but on an appeal to the supreme court of the state this decree was reversed, and the bill ordered dismissed. See 40 N. W. Rep. 50. From that decision, complainants bring error to this court. Reversed.

Statement by Mr. Justice FIELD:

This is a suit in equity to determine the respective rights of the adult and minor heirs of Edward Bernier, at the time of his death, to certain real property in Michigan, held by him under a homestead entry, and to compel the conveyance from the minor heirs, and the defendant who has acquired an interest from one of them, or an undivided half of the premises, to the complainants. It arises out of the following facts:

On the 24th of May, 1875, Edward Bernier made a homestead entry on the lands in controversy under the provisions of the homestead law of the United States. At the time he was a widower, his wife having died in April, 1872. He occupied the premises as a homestead until his death, June 17, 1876. He left 10 children surviving him, 5 of whom were at the time over 21 years of age, and they are the complainants in this case; and 5 were at the time under 21 years of age, and they, with one John H. Goff, who acquired, in 1885, by a quitclaim deed, the interest of one of them, are the defendants. One of the defendants and minor heirs, Joseph Bernier, before suit, conveyed his interest to his sister and co-

Page 243

defendant, and filed a disclaimer. She, representing both his and her own share, was willing to divide the property on the basis claimed by the complainants, and has permitted a decree to pass against her by default. In October, 1876, some months after the death of Edward Bernier, Samuel F. Bernier, one of the adult heirs, on behalf of all the 10 heirs, made the required proof for commuting the homestead entry, paid the minimum price for the land, and received a certificate entitling him to a patent therefor. This certificate was never canceled, nor was any proceeding taken for its cancellation, nor was any notice given of a contest respecting it, nor was any irregularity in its issue alleged. The only proof of occupation and improvement was made by Samuel F. Bernier, and the only sums paid for the land were advanced by him, on behalf of all the heirs. But, notwithstanding these facts, some time in April, 1877, a second certificate was issued to the minor heirs of Edward Bernier, which was made upon the commutation proofs presented by Samuel F. Bernier, as above stated, and on the 25th of the same month a patent was issued to them. The bill alleges that this was issued to them by mistake; that it should have been issued to the heirs of Edward Bernier, and that it was issued to the minors without the knowledge, consent, or procurement of the complainants, and in violation of their legal and equitable rights in the premises, and that by its terms the title in fee simple of the premises is in them; but it claims that they hold the same subject to the rights of the complainants therein.

The bill further alleges that all the steps to change the filing on the lands from a preemption claim to a homestead entry, and in commuting the homestead entry and securing a patent for the lands, were taken through an attorney at law, who was acting for the said Edward Bernier's heirs; that when he received the patent he supposed the same ran to those heirs, and, without examining it or discovering his mistake, he placed the same on record, and the mistake was only...

To continue reading

Request your trial
85 practice notes
  • In re Estate of Thomasson, No. 36823.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • April 5, 1943
    ...402, 18 L. Ed. 925; Silver v. Ladd, 7 Wall. 219, 19 L. Ed. 138; Cornelius v. Wessel, 128 U.S. 461, 32 L. Ed. 484; Bernier v. Bernier, 147 U.S. 242, 37 L. Ed. 152; Re Emblem, 161 U.S. 52, 40 L. Ed. 613; 4 Bogert, Trusts & Trustees, sec. 887, pp. ELLISON, C.J. The defendant bank, as executor ......
  • United States v. Winona & St. P.R. Co., 564.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • May 6, 1895
    ...22 How. 193; Lindsey v. Hawes, 2 Black, 554, 562; Johnson v. Towsley, 13 Wall. 72, 85; Moore v. Robbins, 96 U.S. 538; Bernier v. Bernier, 147 U.S. 242, 13 Sup.Ct. 244; Mullan v. U.S., 118 U.S. 271, 278, 279, 6 Sup.Ct. 1041; Moffat v. U.S., 112 U.S. 24, 5 Sup.Ct. 10. It is not difficult to d......
  • King v. McAndrews, 1,569.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • October 28, 1901
    ...17 L.Ed. 265; Johnson v. Towsley, 13 Wall. 72, 85, 20 L.Ed. 485; Moore v. Robbins, 96 U.S. 530, 538, 24 L.Ed. 848; Bernier v. Bernier, 147 U.S. 242, 13 Sup.Ct. 244, 37 L.Ed. 152. The aggrieved party has a like remedy for the wrongful issue of a [111 F. 865] patent upon a misapprehension of ......
  • Estate of Gerson v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 127 T.C. No. 11 (U.S.T.C. 10/24/2006), No. 13534-04.
    • United States
    • United States Tax Court
    • October 24, 2006
    ...will explain and support and not defeat or destroy another section. Crane v. Commissioner, 331 U.S. 1, 13 (1947); Bernier v. Bernier, 147 U.S. 242, 246 (1893); Pleasanton Gravel Co. v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 839, 851 (1985). Accordingly, I believe that section 7805 is not a delegation of aut......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
85 cases
  • In re Estate of Thomasson, No. 36823.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • April 5, 1943
    ...402, 18 L. Ed. 925; Silver v. Ladd, 7 Wall. 219, 19 L. Ed. 138; Cornelius v. Wessel, 128 U.S. 461, 32 L. Ed. 484; Bernier v. Bernier, 147 U.S. 242, 37 L. Ed. 152; Re Emblem, 161 U.S. 52, 40 L. Ed. 613; 4 Bogert, Trusts & Trustees, sec. 887, pp. ELLISON, C.J. The defendant bank, as executor ......
  • United States v. Winona & St. P.R. Co., 564.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • May 6, 1895
    ...22 How. 193; Lindsey v. Hawes, 2 Black, 554, 562; Johnson v. Towsley, 13 Wall. 72, 85; Moore v. Robbins, 96 U.S. 538; Bernier v. Bernier, 147 U.S. 242, 13 Sup.Ct. 244; Mullan v. U.S., 118 U.S. 271, 278, 279, 6 Sup.Ct. 1041; Moffat v. U.S., 112 U.S. 24, 5 Sup.Ct. 10. It is not difficult to d......
  • King v. McAndrews, 1,569.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • October 28, 1901
    ...17 L.Ed. 265; Johnson v. Towsley, 13 Wall. 72, 85, 20 L.Ed. 485; Moore v. Robbins, 96 U.S. 530, 538, 24 L.Ed. 848; Bernier v. Bernier, 147 U.S. 242, 13 Sup.Ct. 244, 37 L.Ed. 152. The aggrieved party has a like remedy for the wrongful issue of a [111 F. 865] patent upon a misapprehension of ......
  • Estate of Gerson v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 127 T.C. No. 11 (U.S.T.C. 10/24/2006), No. 13534-04.
    • United States
    • United States Tax Court
    • October 24, 2006
    ...will explain and support and not defeat or destroy another section. Crane v. Commissioner, 331 U.S. 1, 13 (1947); Bernier v. Bernier, 147 U.S. 242, 246 (1893); Pleasanton Gravel Co. v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 839, 851 (1985). Accordingly, I believe that section 7805 is not a delegation of aut......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT