Henry Miller Heirs and Devisees, Complainants and Appellants v. Jacob and Isaac Intyre, Appellees
| Decision Date | 01 January 1832 |
| Citation | 6 Pet. 61,31 U.S. 61,8 L.Ed. 320 |
| Parties | HENRY MILLER'S HEIRS AND DEVISEES, COMPLAINANTS AND APPELLANTS v. JACOB AND ISAAC M'INTYRE, APPELLEES |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
APPEAL from the circuit of the United States for the district of Kentucky.
The facts and pleadings of the case are fully stated in the opinion of the court.
It was argued by Mr Doddridge and Mr Denny for the appellants, and by Mr Wickliffe and Mr Daniel for the appellees.
Mr Justice M'LEAN delivered the opinion of the Court.
This cause was appealed from the decree of the circuit court of the United States for the district of Kentucky. The original bill was filed in May 1808, in which in which the complainants stated, that on the 10th of December 1782, their ancestor, Henry Miller, made an entry of one thousand six hundred and eight-seven acres of land, which was surveyed the 9th of April 1804, and patented the 19th of July 1820. That the defendants were in possession of the land under said claims; and the bill prayed that they might be compelled to disclose their titles, and surrender the possession of the premises.
In June 1815, the complainants amended their bill, and, among other things stated, that on the 16th of May 1780, Nicholas M'Intyre entered a thousand acres of land on the waters of the Licking, &c., and having caused the same to be surveyed, contrary to location, obtained a patent elder in date than the complainants. That this land was devised by Nicholas M'Intyre to his sons Isaac and Jacob; and that Isaac conveyed to John M'Intyre, who is made a defendant. Jacob M'Intyre, and several others, are also made defendants. In 1816, Jacob M'Intyre filed his answer, in which he admits the entry of his ancestor as stated by the complainants, and sets forth an amendment of the said entry, made on the 14th of December 1782. By this amendment, it seems, the entry was made to interfere with complainants' entry.
An amended answer was filed by Jacob M'Intyre in May 1822, in which he claims the benefit of the statute of limitations from an occupancy of the land more than twenty years before suit was brought. Isaac M'Intyre seems never to have been served with process, or made a defendant to the amended bill. This was deemed unnecessary; it is presumed, from the fact stated in the bill, that he had conveyed his interest to John M'Intyre.
In his answer, filed in December 1821, John M'Intyre states, that the legal title to no part of the thousand acres is vested in him; but that he holds a bond, executed by Nicholas M'Intyre, for a moiety of the said tract; and that a deed for the same had been executed to him by Isaac M'Intyre, but that it had never been recorded. He alleges, that an adverse possession of more than twenty years, by himself and those claiming under him, is a bar to the plaintiffs' right.
The cause was twice appealed to the supreme court from the decrees of the circuit court; and on the second appeal, the decree dismissing the bill was reversed, on the ground, that, under the land law, the survey of the complainants was made in due time, and that the patent was legally issued. And the cause was remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings; and leave was given to the parties to take testimony. 2 Wheat. 316; 11 Wheat. 441. Additional testimony was taken chiefly with the view of proving the possession of the defendants under the M'Intyre patent.
As the complainants' title was sustained by the decree of this court in 1826, the defendants do not attempt to impeach it, but rely exclusively on their possession.
In April 1792, Kentucky adopted a constitution, and she was admitted into the union as an independent state the ensuing session of congress.
By the first section of the schedule, which was adopted with the constitution, it is provided, 'that all rights, actions, prosecutions, claims and contracts, as well of individuals as of bodies corporate, shall continue as if the said government had not been established.'
The statute of limitations which was passed by the legislature of Kentucky on the 17th of December 1796, was a literal copy of the Virginia statute; which was in force before the entries now in controversy were made. This statute therefore operated upon the rights of the parties, while the district of Kentucky formed a part of the state of Virginia, and afterwards by the adoption of the convention. It was not repealed by the statute of 1796, but re-enacted in all its parts.
In the second section of this statute, it is provided, 'that all writs, pc. upon any title heretofore accrued, or which may hereafter fall or accrue, shall be sued out within twenty years next after such title or cause of action accrued, and not afterwards; and that no person or persons who now hath, or have, or may hereafter have, any right or title of entry, into any lands, tenements, or hereditaments, shall make any entry, but within twenty years next after such right or title accrued; and such person shall be barred from any entry afterwards.' 'Provided, nevertheless, that if any person or persons, entitled to such writ or writs, or to such right or title of entry as aforesaid, shall be under age, &c. or not within the commonwealth at the time such right or title accrued or coming to them; every such person and his or her heirs shall and may, notwithstanding the said twenty years are or shall be expired, bring or maintain his action, or make his entry, within ten years next after such disabilities removed or death of the person so disabled, and not afterwards.'
By Josiah M'Dowell, David Jamison, James Sonce, Michael Horniback, and other witnesses, it is satisfactorily proved, that possession was taken of the land in controversy under the M'Intyre grant, by the defendants, or persons claiming under them, in the spring of the year 1788 or 1789. The weight of testimony is in favour of the former period. It is also made to appear, that the possession was adverse to the complainants' title, and co-extensive with the limits of the patent. If an entry be made, under a grant, and there is no adverse possession, the entry will be limited only by the grant, unless the contrary appear.
Various reasons are assigned against the operation of the statute in this case.
It is insisted, that the amended bill...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wagner v. New York, Ontario and Western Railway
...of specified conduct, the reasons for the statute of limitations do not exist * * *." But see Miller's Heirs and Devisees v. McIntyre, 1832, 6 Pet. 61, 64, 31 U.S. 61, 64, 8 L.Ed. 320, "Until the defendants were made parties to the bill, the suit cannot be considered as having been commence......
-
FARINA v. NOKIA INC.
...principle to make the defendants responsible for a proceeding of which they had no notice.’ ” Id. (quoting Miller v. M'Intyre, 31 U.S. (6 Pet.) 61, 64, 8 L.Ed. 320 (1832)). [8] Moreover, although CAFA does not define commencement, “Congress is presumed to enact legislation with knowledge of......
-
Davis v. Chrisp
... ... v. Miller, 80 Ark. 248; 108 S.E ... 273. No assumption of ... "The ... appellants sought, by amendment to their complaint, to ... Miller v. M'Intyre, 31 U.S. 61, 6 ... Peters 61, 8 L.Ed. 320; ... ...
-
McCann v. Randall
...v. Railroad Co., 94 U.S. 806; Langd.Eq.Pl. §§ 111, 129, and cases; Murphy v. Collins, 121 Mass. 7;Knapp v. Abell, 10 Allen, 488;Miller v. McIntyre, 6 Pet. 61; Equity Rule, 21; Putnam v. Dike, 13 Gray, 535; Hapgood v. Watson, 65 Me. 510. The superior court acquired jurisdiction. A case withi......