Galliher v. Cadwell

• Decision Date: 16 May 1892
• Citation: 145 U.S. 368,36 L.Ed. 738,12 S.Ct. 873
• Parties: GALLIHER v. CADWELL
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

145 U.S. 368

12 S.Ct. 873

36 L.Ed. 738

GALLIHER v. CADWELL.

May 16, 1892.

STATEMENT BY MR. JUSTICE BREWER.

On March 1, 1886, appellee, claiming to be the owner of what is known as 'Votaw's Addition to the City of Tacoma,' in the then territory of Washington, filed her bill in the district court to quiet her title to such property, making, with several others, as a defendant, the present appellant. Such appellant answered, alleging a right prior and supperior to that of appellee. Appellee's title was derived by regular conveyances from Francis B. H. Wing, who, on December 20, 1881, entered this land, and on April 20, 1882, received a patent therefor from the United States. Her legal title was, therefore, perfect, and the single question presented was whether appellant had an equity superior to that legal title. In appellant's behalf these general facts appeared: On August 10, 1872, Silas Galliher, her husband, made a homestead entry of the tract. He died April 18, 1873, and his entry was canceled December 4, 1879, for want of final proof within the statutory period of seven years. On June 15, 1880, an act was passed by congress of which the following is the second section:

'Sec. 2. That persons who have hereto-fore, under any of the homestead laws, entered lands properly subject to such entry, or persons to whom the right of those having so entered for homesteads may have been attempted to be transferred by bona fide instrument in writing, may entitle themselves to said lands by paying the government price therefor, and in no case less than one dollar and twenty-five cents per acre; and the amount heretofore paid the government upon said lands shall be taken as part payment of said price; provided, this shall in no wise interfere with the rights or claims of others who may have subsequently entered such lands under the homestead laws.' 21 St. p. 237.

On November 23, 1880, Mrs. Galliher made application for the land under this act. On June 1, 1881, her application was rejected by the secretary of the interior. On June 6, 1884, she petitioned for a rehearing, which, on June 20, 1884, was denied. No other action was taken by her to establish or assert any rights until, in response to the bill in this case, she filed her answer. Upon the proofs the trial court rendered a decree in favor of the appellee, which was sustained by the supreme court of the territory. From such decision appellant brought her appeal to this court.

J. W. Robinson and John B. Allen, for appellant.

J. H. Mitchell, for appellee.

Mr. Justice BREWER, after stating the facts in the foregoing language, delivered the opinion of the court.

There is a question in this case worthy of consideration,—as to whether the homestead entry by the husband of appellant was made in good faith, or simply for speculative purposes. It is also a question of doubt whether, the homestead right not having been perfected within the time prescribed by the statute, and the entry having been duly canceled by the department on account thereof, appellant, as widow, was entitled to the benefit of the act of June 15, 1880, which by its language grants to the party making the entry, or the transfer of such party by bona fide instrument in writing, certain rights of pre-emption. It does not in terms refer to the widow or children of the party making the homestead entry, while sections 2291, 2292, and 2307 of the Revised Statutes in respect to homestead entries contain special provision therefor, as did also the act of September 27, 1850, known as the 'Oregon Donation Act,' (9 St. p. 499,) which cast a descent of the rights of a settler upon his heirs, including his widow. And the argument is worthy of consideration that, because in some acts of congress the widow is specifically named as entitled to rights originally vested in her husband, the omission to specify her in the act in question was an intentional exclusion of her from the privileges named therein, and that congress did not intend to grant to others than the homesteader, and the persons holding under him by instrument in writing, any rights by reason of his income-pleted homestead entry. Suth. St. Const. § 327, and cases cited therein.

But it is unnecessary to rest our decision upon these matters. The laches of the appellant is such as to defeat any rights which she might have had, even if these prior questions were determined in her favor; and in this respect it is worthy of notice that there has been in a few years a rapid and vast change in the value of the property in question. It is now an addition to the city of Tacoma. The census of 1880 showed that to be a mere village, the population being only 1,098. The census of 1890 discloses a city, the population being 36,006. Of course such a rapid increase during this decade implies an equally rapid and enormous increase in the value of property so situated as to be an addition to the city. And the question of laches turns not simply upon the number of years which have elapsed between the accruing of her rights, whatever they were, and her assertion of them, but also upon the nature and evidence of those rights, the changes in value, and other circumstances occurring during that lapse of years. The cases are many in which this defense has been invoked and considered. It is true, that by reason of their differences of fact no one case becomes an exact precedent for another, yet a uniform principle pervades them all. They proceed on the assumption that the party to whom laches is imputed has knowledge of his rights, and an ample opportunity to establish them in the proper forum; that by reason of his delay the adverse party has good reason to believe that the alleged rights are worthless, or have been abandoned; and that because of the changing condition or relations during this period of delay it would be an injustice to the latter to permit him to now assert them.

A reference to a few of the cases in our own Reports may not be out of place. In Harwood v. Railroad Co., 17 Wall. 78, a delay of five years on the part of stockholders in a railroad commpany in bringing suit to set aside judicial proceedings, regular on their face, under which the railroad property was sold, was held inexcusable. In Oil Co. v. Marbury, 91 U. S. 587, a director of a corporation who had loaned money to it, and subsequently bought its property at a fair public sale by a trustee, was protected in his title as...