Eiffert v. Craps

• Decision Date: 04 October 1893
• Docket Number: 46.
• Parties: EIFFERT et al. v. CRAPS et al.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

58 F. 470

EIFFERT et al. v. CRAPS et al.

No. 46.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

October 4, 1893

Statement by MORRIS, District Judge:

The complainants, alleging themselves to be children and heirs of John H. Eiffert, on April 9, 1890, filed their bill of complaint, in equity, to set aside a deed charged to be fraudulent, and to recover possession of about 90 acres of land in Lexington district, in South Carolina. They allege that their father, John H. Eiffert, being in possession and seised in fee of the land, died prior to 1850, the complainants being then from 6 to 12 years old; that they were taken by their mother to the far west, and have ever since resided out of the state; that about 1850 one Mitchell administered on the estate of their father, and, by collusion and fraudulent contrivance with one Henry Craps, pretended to procure an order of the court of ordinary of the district for the sale of the land, and had the land sold by the sheriff, and by collusion and fraud turned the land over to Henry Craps, who took possession, and continued in possession until his death, in 1878; that the fraud was perpetrated by Henry Craps falsely representing to the court of ordinary that he was one of the heirs and distributees of their father, and petitioning the court to sell the land for partition; that after Henry Craps' death, in 1878, the land remained in possession of the devisees under his will until, under a decree for partition, it was sold in 1883 to one of his daughters, who has since sold it in parcels to the other defendants, who are now in possession; that all the devisees of Henry Craps, and their grantees, the defendants have had full knowledge of the fraudulent character of Henry Craps' title. They allege that the deed from the sheriff to Mitchell in 1850 is void, and passed no title, because, if a sale was really ever decreed by the court of ordinary, that court was without jurisdiction to order a sale, both because Craps was not an heir of John H. Eiffert, and because no notice, by advertisement or otherwise, was served on the complainants. As the reason why complainants have been prevented from sooner asserting their rights, they allege that about 1856 the complainant John Henry Eiffert returned to South Carolina, and inquired of Mitchell about their father's land, and was informed by him that it had been sold for debt by the sheriff of Lexington district; that the fraud has only quite recently come to their knowledge, having been fraudulently concealed from them; and that, since they have learned of the fraud, one of the complainants has visited South Carolina, and seen the old people who might have knowledge of the matters, and has examined the records in the clerk's office. The bill prays that the deed from the sheriff to Mitchell may be set aside, and declared void; that the title be declared vested in the complainants; that an account of rents be taken, and a writ of possession granted.

The defendants answered, denying the alleged frauds, and claiming to be innocent purchasers for value. They pleaded the statute of limitations, and the laches of the complainants in asserting their claim of title, and that the complainants have an adequate remedy at law.

The bill coming on to be heard, the court (Judge Simonton) held that it appeared from the allegations of the bill that the complainants had a plain, adequate, and complete remedy at law, and dismissed the bill. The court, as appears from its opinion, proceeded upon the ground that as it was alleged that the court of ordinary was without jurisdiction of the subject-matter, and its order of sale was unauthorized by law, and none of the heirs of Eiffert were parties to the proceeding, or bound by the order, and therefore, as alleged, that the title to the land had never been divested out of them, the case was, in fact, an attempt to enforce a merely legal title by a bill in chancery, instead of by action or ejectment. The court cited Hipp v. Babin, 19 How. 277, as controlling authority that such a bill must be dismissed.

G. T. Graham, J. C. Blair, and F. C. Blair, for appellants.

Before GOFF, Circuit Judge, and HUGHES and MORRIS, District Judges.

MORRIS District Judge, after stating the case as above, .

In the case of Hipp v. Babin, 19 How. 271, cited in his opinion by the learned judge of the court below, the children of a testator filed a bill in equity to recover possession of lands of their father, which had been sold by his executrix during their minority by virtue of an order of court empowering her to make the sale. The complainants relied upon the invalidity of that order, and the consequent nullity of the sale. The supreme court held that the remedy at law, by ejectment, was plain, adequate, and complete, and that the bill in equity was rightly dismissed. It was held, also, in Phelps v. Harris, 101 U.S. 375, that, if a deed is invalid upon its face, it is to be repelled by an action at law, and not in equity.

But the complainants in the present case allege, and assign as error in...