Hanford v. Davies
Decision Date | 18 May 1896 |
Docket Number | No. 260,260 |
Parties | HANFORD v. DAVIES et al |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Bill by Frank Hanford against Griffith Davies and Isabella Davies, his wife, and others. From a decree for defendants (51 Fed. 258), plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
This cause was determined in the court below upon a demurrer to the bill. The grounds of demurrer were (1) that the bill did not set forth any case entitling the plaintiff to relief; (2) that the circuit court had no jurisdiction.
It was adjudged that the bill did not state a case within the jurisdiction of the circuit court, and the question of jurisdiction alone has been certified. 51 Fed. 258.
Taking the case to be as made by the bill, it is substantially as follows:
On October 14, 1878, the territory of Washington, for a valuable consideration, executed to Thaddeus Hanford a deed conveying to him, his heirs and assigns, certain lands in what is now King county, state of Washington. The deed was duly recorded on November 25, 1878. It was executed by the territory in pursuance of a sale made by it of those lands, as the property of one Lumley Franklin, for the nonpayment of taxes due from him. The deed contained what the bill describes as 'the following contract and agreement' between the parties, namely: 'Now, therefore, the said party of the first part, by virtue of the statute in such case made and provided, for the consideration of the sum of money above mentioned, paid to the county treasurer of said county, has granted, bargained, sold, and conveyed, and by these presents does grant, bargain, sell, convey, and confirm, unto the said Thaddeus Hanford, his heirs and assigns, the said described real estate, together with, all and singular, the tenements and appurtenances thereto belonging or in any wise appertaining, and the rents, issues, and profits thereof, as well in law as in equity, and the right, title, and interest of the said Lumley Franklin, and all owners, known or unknown, of, in, or to the above-described premises.'
Thaddeus Hanford immediately entered into possession of the premises, paid the taxes thereon, and improved the same; remaining in possession until the 17th day of September, 1885.
The statutes of Washington territory in force at the date of the above tax sale, as well as at the date of the execution of the above deed, prohibited the bringing of any suit or proceeding for the recovery of land sold for taxes after the expiration of three years from the recording of the tax deed of sale, except in cases where the tax had been paid or the land redeemed, or where such suit was brought by the purchaser at the tax sale. The statute also provided that the tax deed should be presumptive evidence of the regularity of all former proceedings.
On September 17, 1885, Thaddeus Hanford, being in possession, executed to Frank Hanford a deed of the premises, conveying a title in fee. That deed was duly recorded on the 13th day of March, 1886.
Frank Hanford purchased the premises in good faith, for a valuable consideration, and without notice of a claim by any other person than his grantor. In making his purchase he relied, the bill alleges, upon the 'express contract entered into between the territory of Washington and the said Thaddeus Hanford, above set forth, by virtue of which said land was conveyed to said Thaddeus Hanford, and title thereto confirmed in him by said territory, and the laws thereof then existing.'
Immediately after his purchase the plaintiff entered into possession of and improved the premises, paying taxes, and also erecting a dwelling house in which the property of his agent and employ e were kept.
The bill then alleges: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States v. Bink
..."Locality in crimes, as in torts, has ever been considered the chief test of admiralty jurisdiction." 24 Hanford v. Davies, 163 U.S. 273, 279, 16 S.Ct. 1051, 1053, 41 L.Ed. 157. See Kline v. Burke Construction Co., 260 U.S. 226, 233, 234, 43 S.Ct. 79, 67 L. Ed. 226, 24 A.L.R. 1077; Bors v. ......
-
United States ex rel. Carapa v. Curran
......487, 26 Sup.Ct. 133, 50. L.Ed. 281; Thomas v. Ohio State University, 195 U.S. 207, 25 Sup.Ct. 24, 49 L.Ed. 160; Hanford v. Davies, . 163 U.S. 273, 16 Sup.Ct. 1051, 41 L.Ed. 157; Johnson. Steel Rail Co. v. Wharton, 152 U.S. 252, 14 Sup.Ct. 608,. 38 L.Ed. 429; Bors ......
-
Barnette v. Wells Fargo Nevada Nat Bank of San Francisco
...may be inferred argumentatively, from its averments.' Brown v. Keene, 8 Pet. 112, 115 (8 L. Ed. 885); Hanford v. Davies, 16 S. Ct. 1051, 163 U. S. 273, 279, 41 L. Ed. 157. If the jurisdictional facts appear affirmatively somewhere in the record, the case need not be dismissed merely because......
-
Sandsberry v. Gulf, C. & SF Ry. Co.
...or laws of the United States shall be removable without regard to the citizenship or residence of the parties." 4 Hanford v. Davies, 163 U.S. 273, 16 S. Ct. 1051, 41 L.Ed. 157. 5 South Covington & Cincinnati Street Railway Co. v. City of Newport, 259 U.S. 97, 42 S.Ct. 418, 66 L.Ed. 6 McCart......