George King Heirs, Raphael Semmes and Others, Appellants v. Josiah Thompson and Elizabeth His Wife

• Decision Date: 01 January 1835
• Citation: 9 Pet. 204,9 L.Ed. 102,34 U.S. 204
• Parties: GEORGE KING'S HEIRS, RAPHAEL SEMMES AND OTHERS, APPELLANTS v. JOSIAH THOMPSON AND ELIZABETH HIS WIFE
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

34 U.S. 204

9 Pet. 204

9 L.Ed. 102

GEORGE KING'S HEIRS, RAPHAEL SEMMES ANDOTHERS, APPELLANTSv.JOSIAH THOMPSON AND ELIZABETH HIS WIFE.

January Term, 1835

APPEAL from the circuit court of the United States for the county of Washington.

The appellees, Josiah Thompson and wife, on the 14th of June 1826, filed a bill on the equity side of the circuit court, alleging that George King, in October 1812, a few days after the marriage of Josiah Thompson with Elizabeth, the daughter of the said George King, proposed to grant to the said Thompson and wife, a house and lot of ground in Georgetown; if Thompson would repair and make it comfortable for a residence; at the same time informing Thompson, he intended the property for his daughter Betsey.The bill alleges that this offer was accepted by Thompson, and that he made repairs to a large amount, and that he occupied the property after it was repaired until 1816, when he removed to the western country.

At the time of this gift, the bill alleges that George King was in good credit, and in prosperous circumstances; it being believed he had a large capital, and that he owned a valuable real estate, which, after the payment of his debts, not large in amount, would enable him to provide handsomely for his children.

In 1816, before Josiah Thompson removed from Georgetown, a correspondence took place between him and George King, which was annexed to the bill; and which is referred to as evidence of the contract, under which Josiah Thompson took possession of and improved the property.

The first letter was from George King to the complainant, Josiah Thompson, and was dated,

'Georgetown, 17th of April 1816.

'Mr Josiah Thompson:

'Sir, I am informed that you are in suspense in regard to the property you now live on, and I think it a duty incumbent on me to let you know the terms I mean to let my daughter Betsey have it.I hold myself ready, and hold myself bound to give a deed to a trustee, who shall hold it in trust for her and yourself during your lives; and then, after the death of you both, to revert to her lawful heirs, her children, if any she has, if not, to my heirs: but you may say I wrong you in this way, by not letting you know before now that I did not mean to deed to you instead of keeping it for her, and on that account you have put more improvements than you would have done had you have been informed before.You may now sell the property, and all you can get over three thousand dollars for it, you can do as you like with; but that sum must be kept sacred for the use of your wife in the hands of trustees, for her support in case she might ever need it, the use of which as the income will be at your disposal during your own and her life, and then to her heirs as before: and other terms than this it will be useless for you to look for, without you find two just fathers that shall say I ought to do otherways; and, after hearing their reasons on the subject, perhaps I might alter my opinion.

'Yours, with due esteem,

'GEORGE KING.'

In reply to this letter, after remonstrating against making the conveyance of the property in trust, the complainant, under date of the 26th of April 1816, made three proposals to George King.

'1.Let the property be valued as to its worth at the time it was put into my possession, and I will pay the amount over to you, which you may then hold for my wife, or give it to whom you please; for, when I married her, I was not influenced by any pecuniary motive, and as she has never given me reason to regret my choice, I surely will not allow a consideration like the present to create the smallest uneasiness.

'2.Let the improvements be estimated: pay me the amount, and then I will relinquish all claim, and you will be at liberty to dispose of it as you may deem proper.

'3.Execute a deed to your daughter at once in fee-simple, and I will for her benefit and advantage cheerfully give in all that I have expended: this will at once be making her the guardian of her own property, and, if it should please God to call me first, will be to her a support.

'Thus, my dear sir, you will find that I am not disposed to dispute about the original value of the property; for, though I consider it as certainly the property of my wife from the delivery of it into my possession, as any subsequent act could make it, and from the manner I was allowed and encouraged to go on with the improvements; yet I am willing at any moment to bind myself to abide by either of the above proposals.'

To these proposition, George King, on the 29th of April 1816, replied:

'I make no hesitation of complying with your first proposal, for it is just what I proposed in my first to you, and I will do it another way, giving you your choice, viz.I will deed the dwelling-house and all above it to you, and about twenty feet below it; and then all below that I will deed to Betsey, provided she will never deed it, nor otherways dispose of it during her life, only by will, which she shall always be at liberty to make when and how she pleases.

'GEO. KING.'

The bill proceeds to state that the complainant, Josiah Thompson, was satisfied with the proposition contained in the letter of the 29th of April 1816, and that at the removal of the complainant from Georgetown he rented the property, and constituted George King, his agent to collect the rents of the same, which duties he continued to perform, without advancing at any time a claim to the same.

On the death of George King, the legal title to the property descended to his heirs, no conveyance having been made of it to the complainants; and the bill prays for a decree, that the heirs of George King convey the said legal title to the complainants, in fulfilment of the agreement of George King; and in the event that the same for any reason cannot be done, that the said property stand charged, to the amount of the repairs and improvements put on it by the complainants; and for other and further relief, &c.

After the decease of George King in 1830, largely in debt, to the amount of 36,000 dollars, and insolvent, his whole real and personal estate not being sufficient to pay his debts, in fact not more than thirty-nine per cent, of his just debts; his whole real estate was sold by Raphael Semmes, appointed trustee by the court of chancery for that purpose, at the instance of George King's creditors; and among the rest the property now in controversy was sold for 1660 dollars to John W. Baker.

John W. Baker deposited 1190 dollars 18 cents, part of this purchase money in the Mechanics Bank of Georgetown in 1826 and 1827, to remain until the termination of this suit; the first deposit was made on the 26th of July 1826, after the filing of this bill.

In the suit instituted by the creditors of George King, to compel a sale of his real estate for the payment of his debts; all the heirs of George King were made parties, and among the rest, the said Thompson and wife.The sale to Baker never was ratified, in consequence of this suit instituted by Thompson and wife.The heirs of George King(his estate being insolvent) feeling no interest in the suit, filed their answers to the bill of Thompson and wife, neither admitting nor denying the facts alleged, submitting themselves to the judgment of the court.

Raphael Semmes, the trustee for George King's creditors, on petition and by leave of the court, was made a defendant; and allowed to contest the claim set up by Thompson and wife, as was also Charles King one of the principal creditors.They denied the pretended contract and gift set up in the bill; denied the improvements charged to have been made on the property; averred the indebtedness of George King at the time of the pretended gift, to a large amount, and the continuance of such indebtedness to the same creditors up to the time of his death; and the unlawfulness and fraud in law of such gift, if any could be proved; and the insufficiency of George King's whole estate, real and personal, to pay his just debts; and claimed the proceeds of said house and lot, for said creditors of King.

Charles King as a creditor, also filed a bill against Josiah Thompson and wife, charging in substance the same facts; to which bill, Thompson and wife responded, reasserting in substance the matters alleged in the original bill.They admit in this answer, that they were married on the 6th of October 1812, and that the alleged gift of the house and lot was made after the marriage.

Evidence was taken by the complainants and the respondents, which is fully stated in the opinion of this court; and on the 5th of April 1832, the circuit court, all the parties having been heard together, pronounced a decree directing a conveyance in fee of the property, claimed in the bill, to Josiah Thompson; from which decree this appeal was taken.

The case was argued by Mr Dunlop and Mr Key, for the appellants; and by Mr Coxe, for the appellees.

For the appellants it was contended, that the decree of the circuit court was erroneous, and ought to be reversed.

1.Because the letters of George King do not import any contract, binding him or his heirs to convey the property in fee to Thompson, nor does Thompson's bill pray such conveyance.

Because the letters and proof in the cause, show no contract concluded, or ascertained with such certainty, as to warrant a decree for specific execution.

2.If there was a contract of gift, it was made after marriage, without any valuable consideration, was voluntary, and cannot be enforced even against George King's heirs.

The said gift was fraudulent and void.

3.Because George King was indebted at the time of the alleged gift, and so continued up to the time of his death; and his creditors, at the time of the gift, represented by Semmes the trustee, are yet unpaid, and the said King's estate insolvent.

4.The improvements made by Thompson, gave him no lien on the property, or any claim to a conveyance to himself in fee....