Charleston & W. C. Ry. Co. v. Hughes

• Decision Date: 21 July 1898
• Parties: CHARLESTON & W. C. RY. CO. et al. v. HUGHES et al. HUGHES et al. v. CHALESTON & W. C. RY. CO. et al.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

30 S.E. 972

105 Ga. 1

CHARLESTON & W. C. RY. CO. et al. v. HUGHES et al.

HUGHES et al. v. CHALESTON & W. C. RY. CO. et al.

Supreme Court of Georgia

July 21, 1898

Syllabus by the Court.

1. All questions relating to the title, relied on by the plaintiffs in this case, are settled by the decision of this court in the case of Fleming v. Hughes, 99 Ga. 444, 27 S.E 791.

2. The interest in the land which is acquired by a railroad company in a proceeding to condemn under the exercise of the power of eminent domain, is whatever interest the person against whom the proceeding is had has in the land, and no more.

3. An intervener in an equity suit, praying for relief, both legal and equitable, is bound to give effect to all of the equitable rights in the subject-matter of the controversy which the defendant in the intervention may lawfully set up against him. One who avails himself of a remedy in a court of equity is as much bound by the maxim that he who asks equity must do equity as one who is asserting in such court a pure equity right.

4. Where a railroad company lawfully enters upon property under a conveyance from a life tenant, and makes thereon improvements of a character necessary for its business, it has the right, if it intends to abandon the premises at the expiration of the life estate, to remove such improvements from the property. When it continues in possession after the termination of the life estate, and the property is indispensable to the discharge by it of its public duties the value of the improvements placed thereon at its own expense, for its own peculiar use, should not, at the instance of a remainder-man setting up equities and seeking their enforcement in an equitable proceeding, be considered in ascertaining the damages to be paid to the latter for his estate in the premises.

5. Under the rulings above made, the only question to be determined, in a subsequent trial of the case, will be what compensation shall be paid to the plaintiff's for the interest of the remainder-man in the property. Direction is therefore given that this single issue be submitted to a jury, and, when the amount is thus ascertained, that a decree be entered authorizing the defendant, within a reasonable time, to be fixed in the decree, to pay to the plaintiffs the amount of the verdict, and that upon payment of the same the interest of the plaintiffs pass to the railway company. Upon a failure of the railway company to pay the amount of the verdict within the time fixed in the decree, its right to purchase the property should be decreed to have been lost, and a writ of possession should issue authorizing the sheriff to place the plaintiffs in possession under the judgment in ejectment already rendered in the case.

Error from superior court, Richmond county; E. H. Callaway, Judge.

Action by B. H. Hughes and others against the Charleston & Western Carolina Railway Company and others. From the judgment, both parties bring error. Reversed on main bill of exceptions, and affirmed on cross bill.

Henry Crawford, S. J. Simpson, and Bryan Cumming, for Charleston & W. C. Ry. Co. Wm. K. Miller and J. R. Lamar, for B. H. Hughes and others.

COBB J.

The last will of Charles De Laigle was duly probated and admitted to record in the court of ordinary of Richmond county on May 3, 1866. By the ninth item he made the following devise: "To my son Louis I give, devise, and bequeath three other such parts [meaning three-fourths of his estate after the payment of his debts], to be held by him in trust for the sole and separate use of my daughters Martha, Mary, and Emma, one part to each, respectively, for and during the terms of their natural lives, with remainders to such child or children of my said daughters, respectively, as may be living at the time or their respective deaths, and, in default of such child or children, then to the right heirs of each of my said daughters, respectively." After paying the testator's debts, his executors, on April 17, 1867, assented to the devise, and allotted the property in which Emma De Laigle was interested to Louis De Laigle, as trustee for her during her natural life, with remainder and executory devise over as mentioned above. At that time Emma De Laigle, the life tenant, was a minor and unmarried. Louis De Laigle, the original trustee, died in 1867, after the division of the testator's estate; and on October 14, 1868, while Emma De Laigle was still a minor and unmarried, Andrew W. Walton, upon her application, was appointed as trustee for her alone by the judge of the superior court of Richmond county. She attained her majority on March 9, 1869, being still single. Walton resigned as trustee on March 5, 1869, and on the next day E. F. Verdery was appointed trustee for her alone, upon her application, by the judge of the superior court. No bond was required of Verdery and none was given by him. In 1870, while Emma De Laigle was still unmarried, upon the joint petition of herself and Verdery, an order was granted authorizing Verdery to sell the fee in certain property for reinvestment, and it was sold by him under such order in that year. After the passage of this order Emma De Laigle married, and died on January 13, 1894, leaving one child surviving her, who was born on March 17, 1872, and who intermarried with one Hughes. After the passage of the order above referred to, Verdery, the trustee, sold the property to Alfred C. Holt for the sum of $4,000, and conveyed the same to him in fee simple by a deed dated September 9, 1870. Verdery resigned as trustee after Mrs. Hughes was born. Thereafter, in proceedings regularly had, in which Mrs. Hughes was a party, represented by her mother as her next friend, Joseph B. Harris, her father, was appointed trustee in the place of Verdery, and ordered to give a bond in the sum of $4,500, and upon the giving of such bond Verdery was directed to turn over to him all the trust property he held as trustee for Mrs. Harris and her child. Harris, as trustee, gave the bond required. In 1872 the Port Royal Railroad Company, a corporation of this state, located its line of road across the land which had been acquired by Holt under the deed from Verdery, trustee. The company not being able to agree with Holt as to the compensation to be paid to him for the acquisition of the strip required for its purposes, condemnation proceedings were instituted against Holt to have the value of the same assessed, in accordance with the provisions of the company's charter. The only parties to these proceedings were the railroad company and Holt. The amount fixed by the appraisers not being satisfactory to the railroad company, an appeal was entered to the superior court, and on the trial there a verdict in favor of Holt for the sum of $1,100 was the result. No judgment was entered upon this verdict. The amount specified was subsequently paid to Holt, who conveyed the property in fee simple to the railroad company by a warranty deed dated May 8, 1873. The railroad company entered into possession and placed thereon a part of its tracks which were necessary to a complete construction and operation of the railroad which it was authorized by its charter to build. The Port Royal Railroad Company having mortgaged its entire property, including the strip acquired from Holt, to secure a large issue of negotiable bonds, and default in the payment of the same having been made, in 1878 a decree of foreclosure was made by the circuit courts of the United States for the district of South Carolina and the Southern district of Georgia; and under such decree a sale was had, at which certain persons, representing the creditors of the corporation, became the purchasers, and afterwards conveyed the same to a new corporation created by the laws of the states of South Carolina and Georgia, and called the Port Royal & Augusta Railway Company. The latter company executed two mortgages upon its entire property to secure a large issue of bonds, and in 1893 default in payment upon these bonds was made. Thereafter a proceeding in equity was instituted in the superior court of Richmond county to foreclose the mortgages executed by the railroad company to secure the issue of bonds above referred to, and a receiver was appointed to take charge of the property and assets of the company. The strip of land which had been acquired by the Port Royal Railroad Company from Holt passed into the possession of the receiver.

On August 20, 1896, Mrs. Hughes, W. K. Miller, and J. R. Lamar presented a petition to the judge of the superior court setting forth that they were the owners of the land in the possession of the receiver which was described in the deed from Holt to the Port Royal Railroad Company; that upon the same there had been erected six railroad tracks, which were now in the possession of the receiver, and in use by him as a part of the railroad yard and terminals, in the city of Augusta; that Mrs. Hughes acquired title to the property under the will of Charles De Laigle, and became entitled to possession on the death of her mother, Emma De Laigle Harris, which occurred on January 13, 1894; that she had conveyed an undivided half interest in the same to W. K. Miller and J. R. Lamar; that the property is of great value, to wit, $5,000, or other large sum, and that the railroad iron laid upon the same is the property of petitioners, and is of the value of $750, and the yearly rental value of the property is $600, or other large sum; that the company is insolvent, in the hands of a receiver, and its assets in the state of South Carolina are also in the hands of a receiver, and the property of the company is about to be sold under a final decree in that state advertised to take place on the first Tuesday in September, 1896...