Hart v. Sansom

Decision Date21 January 1884
CitationHart v. Sansom, 110 U.S. 151, 3 S.Ct. 586, 28 L.Ed. 101 (1884)
PartiesHART. v. SANSOM and others
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Henry J. Leovy and W. Hallett Phillips, for plaintiff in error.

A. S. Lathrop, for defendants in error.

GRAY, J.

This is a writ of error sued out by Edmond J. Hart, a citizen of Lo isiana, to reverse a judgment rendered against him in the circuit court of the United States for the Northern district of Texas, in an action brought by him against Marion Sansom and the heirs at law of Thomas M. League, citizens of Texas, to recover a tract of land in Johnson county, in that state, of which they had dispossessed him.At the trial, Hart proved his title under a patent from the republic of Texas to League, and a deed with general covenants of warranty from League, dated August 19, 1846, and both recorded on December 9, 1879, and it appeared that the defendant Sansom held possession of the land under a lease from the other defendants and as their tenant.The defendants offered in evidence the record of a judgment rendered by the district court of Johnson county, on August 24, 1875, upon a petition filed June 11, 1873, by the heirs at law of League, (who died intestate November 5, 1865,) against Virgil Wilkerson, Orlando Dorsey, and several other persons, and Hart, alleging that Wilkerson ejected the plaintiffs from this land, and unlawfully withheld possession thereof from them; that on October 29, 1870, the defendant Dorsey, by deed duly recorded, conveyed to some of the other defendants than Wilkerson and Hart three-fourths of the land, reserving in that deed the remaining fourth to himself, and that other deeds (particularly set forth) of parts of the land were afterwards made to the rest of such other defendants and recorded; that the defendant Hart 'sets up some pretended claim and title to said land;' and that 'the defendant Wilkerson is a naked trespasser upon the land of the plaintiffs, and that the several other defendants' several deeds, which appear upon the record of deeds of Johnson county as aforesaid, are fraudulent and void, and that the said pretended claims and deeds, and each and all of them, cast a cloud upon the title of the plaintiffs;' and praying 'that they have judgment that the cloud upon the title of the plaintiffs, created by the several deeds aforesaid, be removed, and that the said deeds, and each and all of them, be declared null and void, and be canceled and dis- charged of record, and that the title of the plaintiffs in and to said premises and every part thereof, may by confirmed and established as against said defendants and each and every of them, and all persons claiming through or under them,' and for a writ of possession, damages, and costs.That record also showed the issue and due service of citations to all the defendants except Dorsey and Hart; the issue of a citation directing the sheriff to serve Hart, being a citizen of Louisiana, by publication, and the sheriff's return showing the execution of the citation by such publication in a newspaper of the county four successive weeks before the return day, and a like service by publication on Dorsey, a citizen of New York.That record further showed a default of all the defendants; and that upon a writ of inquiry the jury assessed damages against Dorsey and Hart; found as facts the issue of the patent to League and the title of the plaintiffs as his heirs; that Hart 'claimed said land;' and that a deed was made by Dorsey and recorded, as alleged in the petition, but that Hart and Dorsey respectively had no title of record or otherwise; and returned a verdict 'for the plaintiffs; and that they recover the land described in the petition.'That record finally showed a judgment 'that the plaintiff's recover of the defendants the premises described,' and 'that the several deeds in the plaintiff's petition mentioned be and the same are hereby annulled and canceled, and for naught held, and the cloud thereby removed,' and for costs, and that execution issue for the costs.The circuit court, against the plaintiff's objection, admitted the judgment in evidence, instructed the jury that it divested the plaintiff of his title to the land, and directed a verdict for the defendants.

The plaintiff, deriving his title under a deed with covenants of general warran y from League, is entitled to maintain this action against League's heirs, who are estopped by those covenants, unless the former judgment in the action brought by them in the state court has adjudicated the title as between them and the present plaintiff.It is therefore necessary to consider the nature and effect of that judgment.The petition combined, in accordance with the practice prevailing in that...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
160 cases
  • United States v. Langston
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • May 10, 1886
  • Bleidorn v. Pilot Mountain Coal & Mining Co.
    • United States
    • Tennessee Supreme Court
    • September 30, 1890
    ...decrees therein rendered, although such a decree against non-residents, parties only by publication, and who entered no appearance, would be treated by the courts of the United States and of other states as a nullity. Hart v. Sanson, 110 U. S. 151, 3 Sup. Ct. Rep. 586, and cases cited. When such a proceeding is expressly authorized by statute, a decree against a non-resident, a party only by publication, is, from the necessity of the case, and by force of the statute, valid and conclusive,...
  • Gude v. Dakota Fire & Marine Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • South Dakota Supreme Court
    • November 01, 1895
  • Cameron v. The Penn Mutual Life Insurance Company
    • United States
    • June 02, 1932
    ...Veeder v. Gilmer, 47 Tex. Civ. App. 464, 105 S. W. 331. So also to reform notes, 50 C. J. 505; Doepke v. Christy Box Car Loader Co., 14 Ohio N. P. (N. S.) 523; see, also, 23 R. C. L. 356; and to cancel a deed, Hart v. Sansom, 110 U. S. 151, 3 S. Ct. 586, 28 L. Ed. 101. Such actions may be in personam as to the parties to the contract or instrument sought to be reformed; but as to third parties, whose rights are incidental only, and depend upon what the contract in fact is,in property they may have in the state, and the jurisdiction to hear and determine in this kind of cases may be obtained wholly and entirely by publication." And see Arndt v. Griggs, 134 U. S. 316,10 S. Ct. 557, 33 L. Ed. 918; Hart v. Sansom, supra. In Quarl v. Abbett, 102 Ind. 233, 1 N. E. 476, 480, 52 Am. Rep. 662, it was held that service by publication on two nonresident defendants in a suit to set aside a fraudulent transfer of stock in an Indiana corporation was good....
  • Get Started for Free
1 books & journal articles
  • The language of property: form, context, and audience.
    • United States
    • Stanford Law Review Stanford Law School Smith, Henry E.
    • April 01, 2003
    ...odd acres and plots). (314.) For a classic statement of this problem, see Fuller, supra note 267, at 663. (315.) Charles M. Grey, The Boundaries of the Equitable Function, 20 AM. J. LEGAL HIST. 192, 202 (1976). (316.) See Hart v. Sansom, 110 U.S. 151,154(1884). (317.) Walter Wheeler Cook, The Powers of Courts of Equity (pt. 2), 15 COLUM. L. REV. 106 (1915) (exploring the distinction between in rem and in personam (318.) Merrill & Smith, supra note 16, at 848-49; see also...