Central Land Co. v. Laidley
| Citation | 9 S.E. 61,32 W.Va. 134 |
| Parties | CENTRAL LAND CO. v. LAIDLEY et al. |
| Decision Date | 11 February 1889 |
| Court | Supreme Court of West Virginia |
Submitted January 16, 1889.
Syllabus by the Court.
1. If a deed from husband and wife conveying land of the wife be void as to her because of defective certificate of her examination and acknowledgment, and after the death of her husband she convey the land to another with notice of the former deed yet the second purchaser will not be affected by such notice the former deed being void and passing no right, legal or equitable, and the second purchaser does not hold the land as trustee for the first purchaser, and equity will not compel him to convey to the first purchaser, nor will it enjoin the second purchaser from prosecuting an action of ejectment to recover the land from the first purchaser's possession or that of his vendee.
2. Nor will equity refund to the first purchaser or his vendee the consideration paid by the first purchaser by personal decree against second purchaser, or by charging it on the land. The covenant of warranty in the deed binds the woman no further than to pass her land even if valid.
3. Though during coverture the wife bring suit against her husband and others to assert her right to land acquired by her husband in his name with the consideration paid by such first purchaser, reciting in her pleading that she had executed such deed to such first purchaser and received the consideration, and obtained a decree giving her such land and declaring it her separate estate, that will not estop her, or such second purchaser, from recovering the land from the first purchaser or his vendee.
4. Though in such suit she so recite her former deed, and though she and her husband make a deed to another person for one acre within the bounds of the tract mentioned in the void deed, and which that deed had reserved to her, describing it as the one acre reserved in the void deed, referring to that deed as a deed, yet this is no ratification of such void deed. During coverture she cannot ratify such void deed by mere admissions or recitals or other acts in pais but only by acknowledgment of the void deed, or the execution of another instrument with privy exam ination, acknowledgment, and recordation, as prescribed by the statute.
5. Where by deed land was conveyed directly to a married woman prior to the Code of 1868, such conveyance did not create in her a separate estate, but the husband became entitled to a freehold estate in the land, which would continue at least during the joint lives of the husband and wife, with remainder in fee to the wife.
6. In such case, if the husband and wife, by a deed void as to her, for want of a proper certificate of her examination and acknowledgment, convey the land to a party, and put him in possession, such purchaser is entitled to hold that possession until the death of the husband, and the wife or her heirs, or any one claiming under them, have no right of entry until the husband's death, and right of action does not accrue to them, nor does the statute of limitations run against them, until his death.
Appeal from circuit court, Summers county; HOMER A. HOLT, Judge.
Bill by the Central Land Company, a corporation, against John B. Laidley and others, to declare said Laidley a trustee for the benefit of complainant of certain land in Cabell county, W. Va., to enjoin him from prosecuting an action of ejectment therefor, and for other relief. The suit was brought in the circuit court of Cabell county, but transferred to Summers county, where the bill was dismissed on the hearing. Complainants appeal.
J. H. Ferguson and Simms & Enslow, for appellant.
Brown & Jackson and J. B. Laidley, in pro. per., for appellee Laidley.
By deed dated 18th August, 1865, Rebecca J Everett conveyed to Sarah H. G. Pennybacker, then a married woman, 240 acres of land, now within the city of Huntington. By a deed dated 25th February, 1870, Sarah H. G. Pennybacker and her husband, John M., united in a deed purporting to convey said land to C. P. Huntington; and by deed dated 16th October, 1871, Huntington conveyed it to the Central Land Company. Huntington took possession, and after him the Central Land Company, and it laid off a large part into lots, streets, and alleys, sold many lots, and buildings have been erected thereon. Mrs. Pennybacker's husband died 5th May, 1881, and she by deed dated 26th January, 1882, conveyed said land to John B. Laidley, who had full notice of said deed to Huntington when he took his conveyance. In March, 1882, Laidley brought an action of ejectment against the Central Land Company and others, to recover this land, and on its trial there were a verdict and judgment for defendants. Upon a writ of error to said judgment it was reversed, and the action of ejectment was remanded for retrial to the circuit court of Cabell county, where it is now pending. On the decision by this court of the writ of error, as will be seen from the case of Laidley v. Land Co., 30 W.Va. 505, 4 S.E. 705, the said deed from Mrs. Pennybacker and her husband to Huntington was held void, because of defect of the certificate of the privy examination and acknowledgment of Mrs. Pennybacker. Pending said writ of error, the Central Land Company brought a chancery suit against Laidley and others, alleging the facts above stated; and, further, that Laidley procured his deed from Mrs. Pennybacker by misrepresenting to her that she was conveying a dower only, and had paid only $500 for it, whereas Huntington had paid $11,000, and the land was worth at date of Laidley's deed $30,000; and that it had sold divers lots to the Chesapeake & Ohio Railroad Company and others, who had built railroad tracks and houses thereon, and relying on adverse possession from the date of the deed to Huntington; and that Laidley when he took his deed had full knowledge of the deed from Pennybacker to Huntington, and from Huntington to the land company, and of the sales of said lots. It further alleged that, in 1872, Mrs. Pennybacker brought a chancery suit against her husband and others, in which she stated that she had, on payment to her of $11,000 consideration, conveyed the land to Huntington, that it was her separate estate, and that her husband had agreed to invest it in other land for her, but had wrongfully invested it in his own name in two farms, and seeking to have those farms declared her separate estate and conveyed to her; and that a decree had been rendered in said suit declaring her entitled to one of those farms,--the Noel farm,--by reason of the investment therein of money arising from said sale of her land to Huntington; and alleging that she and her husband had made a deed to one Parsons, duly acknowledged, conveying one acre which, in the deed to Huntington, she had reserved, and that in said Parsons deed she recognized the Hunting ton deed in describing the one acre by the language, "and more particularly described in a deed of the party of the first part to C. P. Huntington." The bill contended that by reason of said deeds, and the plaintiff's claim and possession of said land, and the claim of Mrs. Pennybacker through said chancery suit and decree therein, recognizing said sale to Huntington, and obtaining the benefit of its proceeds, and her recognition of the conveyance to Huntington in her deed to Parsons, and the knowledge on the part of Laidley of all the rights of all these parties when he took his deed, the said land company had good title, which was beclouded and disquieted by Laidley's claim and action of ejectment. It appeared that Mrs. Pennybacker had later suffered losses, and was insolvent, and her husband's estate likewise, and not good for the warranty in said deed. The bill claimed that Laidley held under his conveyance from Mrs. Pennybacker as trustee for the land company and others owning parcels of the land under it; and it prayed that he be required to convey said lands to them, and be enjoined from prosecuting said action of ejectment, and other actions which Laidley had instituted against vendees of said company; or, if such relief could not be had, that Laidley be required to refund the $11,000 which Huntington had paid Mrs. Pennybacker for the land, and the land charged with it.
Laidley filed an answer maintaining that, by the deed from Pennybacker and wife, John M. Pennybacker passed only a life-estate to Huntington, as the deed from Everett to Mrs Pennybacker invested him with a life-estate, and her with a remainder in fee, and that Mrs. Pennybacker by the deed to Huntington did not convey her estate to him, and denied that she received the $11,000 consideration from Huntington, but that her husband received and squandered it. He denies that he represented to her that she had only a dower, but told her deed to Huntington was void, and she could recover a fee-simple. He denies all right of the plaintiff, and contends that he is not to be deemed a trustee holding the title for the company, and in all respects relied on his title, and resisted at length the entire claim of the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed an amended and supplemental bill setting up the sales of other parcels of land to other parties, and stating that since the filing of the original bill said writ of error had been determined, reversing said judgment in ejectment, and granting a new trial, and alleging over again substantially the facts stated in the original bill, claiming the plaintiff had superior equity, while Laidley held the legal title, and praying the same relief as prayed for in the original bill. Laidley answered, contesting the plaintiff's case from first to last, alleging that the deed to Huntington had been held void by the supreme court, asserting his...
To continue reading
Request your trial