Hall v. Gambrill

• Decision Date: 08 February 1899
• Docket Number: 287.
• Citation: 92 F. 32
• Parties: HALL v. GAMBRILL et al.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

92 F. 32

HALL v. GAMBRILL et al.

No. 287.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

February 8, 1899

W. W Arnett (D. C. Casto and V. B. Archer, on brief), for appellant.

Wm. G Peterkin (Van Winkle & Ambler, on brief), for appellees.

Before GOFF, Circuit Judge, and PAUL and WADDILL, District Judges.

PAUL District Judge.

This cause is here on appeal from a decree of the United States circuit court for the district of West Virginia.

The appellant was one of the plaintiffs in the court below, and the appellees were the defendants. On the 6th day of September, 1889, the appellee J. H. Gambrill, a citizen of the state of Maryland, and the appellant, Cyrus Hall, a citizen of the state of West Virginia, entered into an agreement whereby said Hall undertook to sell for said Gambrill certain tracts of land lying in Ritchie county. W.Va. The material part of said agreement is as follows:

'The said sales to be made for not less than five dollars ($5) per acre; the payments to be not less than one-third cash, and the deferred payments to be secured by good and sufficient liens, with notes as collateral security; the same to bear interest from the day of said sale. The said party of the second part hereby agreeing to perform all necessary work in the sale of said lands, draw all deeds of conveyance, mortgages, and notes in legal and proper form, and for which to receive, as compensation for said services, twenty per cent. (20 per cent.) of the net receipts of said sales, but that the 20 per cent. to be received only as the purchase money is collected, unless the party of the second part shall sell said lands for one-half cash; then, and in that event, he is to receive his 20 per cent. commissions,-- that is, the whole amount out of the one-half cash received,-- but does bind himself to collect all deferred payments if the party of the first part desires it. It is hereby agreed and understood that all mortgages, notes, and securities are to be made payable to the said James H. Gambrill, or his order, who will, when the same have been paid and the said purchase money has all been fully paid, execute with himself and wife good and sufficient deeds conveying the said lands to the purchaser or purchasers. The said 20 per cent. to be for all legal services heretofore rendered in defense of title to said lands, or may be rendered.'

On the 12th of March, 1897, the appellant, Hall, entered into a contract with one Ray C. Coulter for the sale of a tract of land of 563 1/2 acres, the land in controversy, at $9 per acre. On the 15th day of March, 1897, the said J. H. Gambrill made a deed of assignment to Robert Gambrill, as trustee, of the tract of land in question, for the benefit of the creditors of said J. H. Gambrill. This deed was recorded in Ritchie county, W. Va., on the 18th day of March, 1897. The contract between Hall and Coulter bears date the 12th day of March, 1897. The evidence shows it was not signed for several days after that date. It was acknowledged April 5, 1897, and recorded on that day. On the 26th day of March, 1897, Hall wrote to Gambrill that he had made a sale of the land, and inclosed a deed dated March 30, 1897, conveying the same, to be executed by Gambrill and his wife to Coulter. On the 31st day of March, 1897, Gambrill wrote to Hall notifying him that he had made an assignment, and that he had no power to execute the deed to Coulter. On the 3d day of April, 1897, said Cyrus Hall and Ray C. Coulter instituted in the circuit court of Ritchie county a suit in equity against said J. H. Gambrill and Robert G. Gambrill. The said Hall sued out in his suit, under the provisions of a statute of West Virginia, process of attachment against the property of said J. H. Gambrill, had the same levied on the 563 1/2 acres of land in controversy, and also had the attachment served on himself, as attorney in fact of J. H. Gambrill, requiring him, as garnishee, being indebted to and having in his possession the effects of the defendant J. H. Gambrill, to appear before the circuit court of Ritchie county on the first day of its next term, to answer as to such indebtedness and effects.

Hall, in his affidavit, on which the attachment issued, states his claim as follows:

'That, so far as this plaintiff is concerned, this action is brought to recover for a debt arising out of contract for legal services and commissions for the sale of a certain tract of land in Ritchie county, W. Va., under a written agreement between this affiant and James H. Gambrill, which said agreement is here made part of this affidavit, as Exhibit C.H.'

This affidavit further states that the amount which he believes he is, at the least, justly entitled to recover in said suit, is $1,014.30, with the interest until paid, and that the following grounds of attachment exist, to wit: That all of said debt is due, and that the defendants, and both of them, are not residents of the state of West Virginia.

The bill filed by Hall and Coulter, after reciting the transactions between Hall and Gambrill, and between Hall and Coulter, and a statement of the execution of the deed of assignment by J. H. Gambrill to Robert G. Gambrill, alleges that the said pretended deed of assignment from J. H. Gambrill to his son, Robert G. Gambrill, is fraudulent, null, and void, and constitutes a could upon the title of the purchaser, Ray C. Coulter, which ought to be canceled and removed. Therefore, quoting from the bill--

'It was intended wholly and solely for the purpose of cheating and defrauding Cyrus Hall, one of the plaintiffs, out of the sum of $1,014.30, due to him for legal services and commissions for making said sale, and also to cheat, defraud, and deprive the plaintiff Ray C. Coulter from obtaining a title to the tract of land so purchased by him, as aforesaid. They further show to your honor that they had vested rights which had become complete and irrevocable, and could not in any way be taken away from them by any act on the part of the defendant Gambrill.'

The prayer of the bill, omitting the formal parts, is:

'That the pretended deed of assignment, heretofore referred to, from the defendant J. H. Gambrill, to his son, Robert G. Gambrill, may be canceled, set aside, and removed as a cloud upon the title of the purchaser, Ray C. Coulter; that said contract of sale entered into between J. H. Gambrill, by Cyrus Hall, his attorney in fact, and Ray C. Coulter, may be specifically enforced; that your honor will require the defendants to execute, acknowledge, and deliver for record a good and sufficient deed, with covenants of general warranty; that, in case they fail within the time required by your honor to execute said conveyance, a commissioner may be appointed to execute the same in their behalf; that the plaintiff Cyrus Hall may have enforced his attachment lien for $1,014.30, and be allowed to retain in his hands the sum out of the first payment made on said land, as per contract with J. H. Gambrill, filed as Exhibit No. 2, as part of this bill.'

At the May term, 1897, of the circuit court of Ritchie county, the cause, on petition of the defendants, was removed into the circuit court of the United States for the district of West Virginia. To this bill the defendants, J. H. Gambrill and Robert G. Gambrill, filed their joint and separate answer, and also filed a cross bill. In the cross bill they prayed for and obtained an injunction restraining Coulter from taking possession of the land sold to him by Hall. The answer and the cross bill contain substantially the same allegations. They deny the construction of the contract between Hall and Gambrill, as claimed by Hall and Coulter. They charge Hall with endeavoring to sell the land to subserve his own interest, or that of some member of his family, of entering into a conspiracy with his co- plaintiff, Coulter, to dispose of the land at less than its value; that Hall, as the agent of Gambrill, failed to keep his principal notified of the greatly increased value of the land by reason of the discovery of oil and the development of the oil industry on neighboring lands; and ask that the contract of March 23, 1897, between Hall and Coulter, be canceled and annulled. A great deal of testimony was taken in connection with the conduct of Hall in dealing with the land, and as to the conduct of Coulter in making his purchase; also as to the greatly increased value of the land from what it was, in 1889, in a wilderness state, when Hall became Gambrill's agent, to what it was at the time Hall sold the land to Coulter.

On the hearing, the circuit court decreed that the plaintiffs, Hall and Coulter, were not entitled to any relief, and dismissed the bill. It declared the contract of March 12, 1897, between Hall and Coulter, for the sale of the 563 1/2 acres of land, null and void and canceled, and set aside the same as a cloud upon the title of said J. H. Gambrill and R. G. Gambrill, trustee, and perpetuated the injunction granted on the 8th day of June, 1897. The decree further provided:

'This decree is without prejudice to any rights which may hereafter accrue to said Cyrus Hall, under the certain contract in evidence between him and J. H. Gambrill, bearing date on the 6th day of September, 1889.'

From this decree, the plaintiff Hall alone appealed. Omitting the...