Davis v. Filer

• Decision Date: 31 January 1879
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: Lilias I. Davis v. Delos L. Filer, John Canfield and Richard G. Peters

40 Mich. 310

Lilias I. Davis v. Delos L. Filer, John Canfield and Richard G. Peters

Supreme Court of Michigan

January 31, 1879

Submitted January 17, 1879; January 21, 1879; January 22, 1879. [Syllabus Material]

Appeal from Manistee. Submitted January 17, 21 and 22. Decided January 31.

Decree reversed.

Morris & Nelson and C. I. Walker for complainant appellant. A title is not valid if acquired from the government contrary to conditions imposed by law (Attorney General v Smith, 31 Mich. 359; Attorney General v Thomas, 31 Mich. 365; Remeau v. Mills, 24 Mich. 15; Hunter v. Hemphill, 6 Mo. 106; Smith v. Vasbinder, 77 Pa. 127; Bronson v. Kukuk, 3 Dill. 490; Bisson v. Curry, 35 Ia. 72; Sherman v. Buick, 93 U.S. 209; Patterson v. Tatum, 3 Sawyer 164; Matthews v. Rector, 24 Ohio St., 439), such as that the lands shall not already have been disposed of by the government, or that the equitable title shall not already have vested in a third person, Stockton v. Williams, Walk. Ch., 120; Stockton v. Williams, 1 Doug. (Mich.), 546; Boyce v. Danz, 29 Mich. 146; Dale v. Turner, 34 Mich. 405; Campau v. Dewey, 9 Mich. 381; Stoddard v. Chambers, 2 How. 284, 318; Mills v. Stoddard, 8 How. 345; Delauriere v. Emison, 15 How. 525; City of New Orleans v. DeArmas, 9 Pet. 223; Green v. Brennesholtz, 73 Pa. 423; Goldsbee v. Fordham, 49 Ala. 202. Subsequent purchasers are bound by constructive notice, furnished by the registry of prior conveyances (Vaughan v. Greer, 38 Tex. 530; Iglehart v. Crane, 42 Ill. 261; White v. Kibby, 42 Ill. 510; Morrison v. Kelly, 22 Ill. 610; Bayles v. Young, 51 Ill. 127; Mason v. Payne, Walk. Ch., 459; Fitzhugh v. Barnard, 12 Mich. 104), or by facts or circumstances sufficient to put them on inquiry, Oliver v. Piatt, 3 How. 333; Cox v. Milner, 23 Ill. 476; Scott v. Moore, 3 Scam. 306; Rupert v. Mark, 15 Ill. 540; Worden v. Williams, 24 Ill. 67; Bayles v. Young, 51 Ill. 127; Willcox v. Hill, 11 Mich. 256; Hosley v. Holmes, 27 Mich. 416; Stetson v. Cook, 39 Mich. One cannot set up a title against his co-tenant if his grantor could not, Dubois v. Campau, 24 Mich. 360; Jackson v. Bush, 10 Johns. 222; Cook v. Travis, 20 N.Y. 400; Jackson v. Scott, 18 Johns. 94; Arnot v. Beadle, Lalor's Sup. to Hill & Denio, 181; Jackson v. Hinman, 10 Johns. 292; Jackson v. Parker, 9 Cow. 73. One who obtains for himself by fraud, imposition, oppression or undue advantage, a conveyance of land that rightfully belongs to another, equity regards as a trustee, and he may be compelled to account or convey as trustee, Adams v. Bradley, 12 Mich. 346; Edwards v. Hulbert, Walk. Ch., 54; Smith v. Wright, 49 Ill. 403; Hunter v. Aylworth, 38 Iowa 211; Armour v. Alexander, 10 Paige 571; Brown v. Lynch, 1 Paige 147; Fisher v. Fields, 10 Johns. 495; Tiff & Ball on Trusts, tit. Implied Trusts, ch. 2, p. 193; Mulvaney v. Dillon, 1 B. & B., 409; Moore v. Moore, 1 Seld. 256; Reed v. Norris, 2 Myl. & Craig, 361-374; Sweet v. Jacocks, 6 Paige 363; Morey v. Herrick, 18 Pa. 123; Hoge v. Hoge, 1 Watts 163; Gardner v. Ogden, 22 N.Y. 327; a cestui que trust may affirm and enforce a trust created without his knowledge, Corse v. Leggett, 25 Barb. 392; Neilson v. Blight, 1 John. Cas. 205; Lawrence v. Fox, 20 N.Y. 268; Gridley v. Gridley, 24 N.Y. 130; Lowery v. Steward, 25 N.Y. 239; 4 Kent's Com., 307. A court of equity will in a proper case adjudge a patentee of lands to hold as trustee for one having greater rights, Johnson v. Towsley, 13 Wall. 72; Bisson v. Curry, 35 Ia. 72; Smith v. Vasbinder, 77 Pa. 127; Hedley v. Leonard, 35 Mich. 71; Bagnell v. Broderick, 13 Pet. 436; Minter v. Crommelin, 18 How. 87; Garland v. Wynn, 20 How. 8; Lytle v. Arkansas, 22 How. 193; Clements v. Warner, 24 How. 394; Lindsey v. Hawes, 2 Black 554; Stark v. Starrs, 6 Wall. 402; Johnson v. Towsley, 13 Wall. 72; Frisbie v. Whitney, 9 Wall. 187. The cestui que trust can follow the trust property into the hands of one not a bona fide purchaser for value without notice, and the purchaser who has notice of the trust at the time of his purchase becomes himself a trustee, notwithstanding the consideration he has paid, Oliver v. Piatt, 3 How. 333; Gilman v. Hamilton, 16 Ill. 225; Fisher v. Fields, 10 Johns. 495; Murray v. Ballou, 1 Johns. Ch., 566; Shepherd v. McEvers, 4 Johns. Ch., 136.

Ramsdell & Benedict and Bullis & Cutcheon for defendants and appellees, cited as to the diligence required in bringing suit to establish rights in land, Campau v. Van Dyke, 15 Mich. 371; Russell v. Miller, 26 Mich. 1; Craig v. Bradley, 26 Mich. 353; Miller v. Aldrich, 31 Mich. 408; Letcher v. Woodson, 1 Brock 212; McVickar v. Filer, 31 Mich. 304; Ford v. Loomis, 33 Mich. 121; Graydon v. Church, 7 Mich. 36.

Campbell, C.J. The other Justices concurred.

OPINION

Campbell, C.J.

Complainant as heir-at-law of one-tenth and grantee of three-tenths of her grandfather Joseph Smith's estate, filed her bill to establish a trust in her favor in certain lands in Manistee county, known as lots 6 and 10 of section 6 in township 21 north of range 16 west, and lot 1 of section 1 in township 21 north of range 17 west, which she claims were obtained by Filer and Edmund and John Canfield to be patented to them by the State land office under a claim belonging to Joseph Smith's estate which they set up as belonging to them. John Canfield as grantee of his brother Edmund holds lot 1; and Peters holds lot 10 by mesne conveyances derived from Filer. The bill was dismissed below, and she appeals.

Joseph Smith in March, 1851, entered these lands and paid for them at the U.S. land office in Ionia. They turned out to be within the condition of swamp lands set apart for the State of Michigan. On the 11th of May, 1853, the commissioner of the general land office informed the land officers at Ionia that those entries with many others were illegal on that account, and directed them to notify the parties interested to apply to have their purchase money refunded.

On the 19th of November, 1856, Joseph Smith received back his money with a certificate of cancellation from the receiver of the Ionia land office, and on the 11th of December, 1856, made his claim to secure the lands at the State land office, depositing his certificate and the amount to pay for the lands at $ 1.25 per acre, and taking the commissioner's certificate and receipt. The claim was recorded in the books and entered on the maps.

The act then in force (Act 166 of Laws of 1855) provided that where such land purchases from the United States had been canceled as covering swamp lands, the purchaser, his heirs or assigns might at any time before the lands were offered for sale by the State or purchased by any one else, be entitled to purchase them at $ 1.25 per acre on presentation of a certificate of such purchase and cancellation from the register of the land office where such purchase was made. An objection is made in this case that the receiver's certificate does not satisfy the law.

It appears from the public documents in this cause that the cancellation is made by the office at Washington, and that the action of the local land officers is merely in obedience to the orders of the commissioner. It is not competent for the State to lay down rules for the government of those officers, and we cannot suppose that this statute was intended to make the protection of the purchaser whose lands were involved to depend on the technicality that his certificate must come from one land officer instead of the other, when no State court could compel either to issue it. We must assume it was only intended to provide for official evidence from the United States land office, and not to prescribe who should sign it. We do not think there is any force in this objection; and the State land office made no objection when the certificate was presented there, but received and acted on it as sufficient.

The laws of the State did not allow these lands to be finally disposed of before patents were issued to the State. The patents were not received for these lands until February, 1867. We think it appears that they had never been offered for sale when they were patented to Filer and the Canfields on the 28th of March, 1867.

At that time Joseph Smith had been dead several years. Filer and the Canfields knew of his original purchase and its cancellation, and knew of the privileges given by the act of 1855 to such purchasers, their heirs and assigns.

Joseph Smith left two sons, Augustus E. Smith and Luther G. Smith, and two daughters, Nancy Bagley -- now Nancy Rounds -- and Violetta Sherwood. Complainant and her brother George Ford, who has quit-claimed to her, were children of another deceased daughter. Complainant holds the title of Luther G. Smith from his assignee.

Filer procured quit-claims from Augustus E. Smith in August, 1861, from Mrs. Sherwood in August, 1866, and from Mrs. Bagley in May, 1864. He claimed to have an execution title against Luther Smith, but has not proved it, and this need not be regarded.

In January, 1867, Filer quit-claimed lot number 1 to the Canfields, and had previously asserted a right of some kind in the whole lands, subsequent to his first purchase from Augustus Smith. He also paid taxes on them, although the lands were not then legally taxable.

These lands which had been purchased by private parties from the United States after they had become subject to the rights of the State as swamp lands, were marked with a peculiar mark on the State land office maps, and were known as "green lands." Filer and the Canfields knew these lands were green lands. They knew that Smith's heirs had a right to obtain them from the State before they were offered at public sale, and that no one else except their assignees could do so.

Filer tried to get...