Clay v. Deskins

• Decision Date: 02 October 1894
• Docket Number: 75.
• Citation: 63 F. 330
• Parties: CLAY et al. v. DESKINS et al.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

63 F. 330

CLAY et al. v. DESKINS et al.

No. 75.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

October 2, 1894

Z. T Vinson, for appellants.

C. C Watts, for appellees.

Clay and Headley, the appellants in this case, on 25th May, 1888 entered into a contract with L. S. Deskins and William Blackham for the purchase of a tract of land in West Virginia of some 5,000 acres. By the terms of the contract, the price of the land was to be $3 per acre, of which the sum of $230 was to be paid, and was paid in cash, the remainder within 10 months from date, at which time, and on receipt of the money a deed of the land would be executed by the vendors. At the date of this contract, there was pending in Logan county, W Va., a suit in chancery against L. S. Deskins, one of the contracting vendors,-- a creditors' bill, Patton Bros. v. L. S. Deskins and others,-- seeking, among other things, the enforcement of a judgment against him for some $262.57, and a decree had been entered thereon 6th October, 1886, and an order for sale of these lands contracted to be sold for the satisfaction of the decree. Owing to the absence and inability of the commissioner appointed to conduct the sale, and some delay in appointing a substitute, the sale did not take place until 1st April, 1889. On that day, H. K. Shumate, duly appointed commissioner, offered the lands at public auction, and they were bid in by W. H. Deskins, at the sum of $10,000. Shortly afterwards, owing to a higher offer by another person, the bid was raised to $15,000. At that price the land was conveyed by Shumate, the commissioner, to W. H. Deskins, and the sale was confirmed by the court. Thereupon, Samuel Clay and George W. Headley, who are now the appellants in this case, instituted proceedings by way of bill in equity in Logan county, W. Va., against Shumate, the commissioner, who made the sale, L. S. Deskins, the purchaser at the sale, and Stuart Wood, who had contracted to buy the land from W. H. Deskins. The bill charged that the sale was fraudulent and void as against the complainants, and that it infringed against, and was an attempt to destroy, the rights acquired by them on the contract. This contract they set out in the first paragraph of the bill, and claim and rely on it as the foundation of their right of action. The circuit court of Logan county, after full hearing, sustained the allegations of the bill, set aside the sale as fraudulent and void, and declared that the complainants were entitled to the relief prayed for in the bill. A part of this relief, and as a consequence of setting aside the sale, was that L. S. Deskins and William Blackham, upon receipt of the remainder of the purchase money under the contract, would be compelled to make to the complainants a proper deed of conveyance of these lands. The cause was carried into the supreme court of West Virginia by appeal on the part of the defendants, and that court, at January term, 1892, reversed the decision of the lower court and dismissed the bill. 15 S.E. 85. The supreme court, in its opinion, held that the bill was really for the specific performance of the contract, and that, unless the complainants could establish their right to such relief, they had no standing in court to complain of the fraud in the sale. The same complainants, on 17th December, 1892, filed their bill of complainant in the circuit court of the United States for the district of West Virginia against L. S. Deskins. W. H. Deskins, Stuart Wood and William Blackham and wife, as defendants. This bill sets out the contract of sale of 25th May, 1888, between them and L. S. Deskins and William Blackham for these 5,000 acres of land, the pending suit of Patton Bros. v. L. S. Deskins and others, the sale under this last-named suit, the proceedings in the circuit court of Logan county to set aside the sale, and the decree of that court setting it aside. It then avers that the only question made in that suit was the validity of the sale, the question of specific performance of the contract not being in issue, and therefore not adjudicated; but that, at the hearing of the appeal, the supreme court of West Virginia rest the decision wholly on the question of specific performance, and on this issue reverse the decree below; and, for this reason, that the decree did not adjudicate the rights of the parties, and is simply obiter dictum. The bill then sets up the rights of the complainants under the contract, which they claim is an absolute deed of conveyance; denies all notice of the pendency of the Patton Bros. suit, constructive or actual; and denies any laches on their part. They charge that the sale to W. H. Deskins by Shumate, commissioner, was fraudulent and void as to them. They then allege...