Horsford v. Romeo

• Decision Date: 14 March 1969
• Docket Number: No. 17311.,17311.
• Citation: 407 F.2d 1302
• Parties: Samuel HORSFORD v. Gilbert ROMEO, Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit

407 F.2d 1302 (1969)

Samuel HORSFORD v.Gilbert ROMEO, Appellant.

No. 17311.

United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.

Argued January 29, 1969.

Decided March 14, 1969.

Alexander A. Farrelly, Birch, Maduro, DeJongh & Farrelly, Charlotte Amalie, V. I., for appellant.

George H. T. Dudley, Charlotte Amalie, V. I., for appellee.

Before MARIS, VAN DUSEN and ALDISERT, Circuit Judges.

OPINION OF THE COURT

MARIS, Circuit Judge.

This is an appeal by the defendant from a judgment for the plaintiff in an action for the proceeds of the sale of land.The land in question was located on the island of Antigua and had been conveyed by the Government of Antigua to the plaintiff and a certificate of title issued to him in 1952.In 1966 the Government desired to acquire the land as part of a missile site and since the plaintiff was in New York the defendant obtained a power of attorney from the plaintiff under which the defendant, acting as the plaintiff's attorney in fact, conveyed the land to the Government and received the proceeds, BWI $8,040.00.The defendant paid the plaintiffUS $200.00 of the proceeds but refused to pay the balance, whereupon the plaintiff instituted this suit.The defense, set up in the answer under the heading of counterclaim, was that the defendant was the equitable owner of the land and as such was entitled to the proceeds of its sale and that the payment of $200.00 to the plaintiff was a gift.Upon consideration of the sharply conflicting evidence the district court found that the plaintiff had acquired title to the land in question from the Government of Antigua and concluded that as against the plaintiffthe defendant had no interest in the land which would entitle him to retain any of the proceeds of the sale.Judgment was accordingly entered in favor of the plaintiff for the proceeds of the sale, converted to U. S. currency, less the sum of $200.00 previously paid.The defendant on appeal makes two contentions.

The first contention of the defendant is that the plaintiff failed to plead and prove the law of Antigua and the court failed to apply that law in determining whether the legal title of the plaintiff to the land in question was subject to a trust in favor of the defendant as equitable owner.This contention is wholly without merit.In the first place the district court was entitled to presume, in the absence of any showing to the contrary, that the common law of Antigua, a common law jurisdiction, was the same in this...