Hunt v. Blackburn
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
| Citation | 32 L.Ed. 488,128 U.S. 464,9 S.Ct. 125 |
| Parties | HUNT v. BLACKBURN et al |
| Decision Date | 26 November 1888 |
Hunt filed his bill in equity in the district court for the Eastern district of Arkansas, on the 25th of June, 1881, against Sallie S. Blackburn, Charles B. Blackburn, and W. P. Smith, claiming as a purchaser for value, with the knowledge and assent of Sallie S. Blackburn, of an undivided half of a plantation in Desha county, Ark., of which the defendant Sallie S. Blackburn owned the other half, and deraigning title by sundry mesne conveyances from one Shepard to W. A. Buck, whose wife said Sallie S. then was, by Buck and wife to Drake, Drake to Winfrey, who, as Hunt alleged, pur-
Page 465
chased for value with Mrs. Buck's knowledge and assent, Winfrey's assignee to Weatherford, and Weatherford to himself; setting up certain decrees hereinafter mentioned, and praying, after averments appropriate to such relief, that his title be quieted, and for partition. Defendant Sallie S. Blackburn answered April 25, 1883, asserting sole ownership of the lands under a deed from Shepard to W. A. Buck, her then husband, and herself, and charging, in respect to the decrees upon the title, that she was misled by her attorney and confidential adviser, Weatherford, as to her rights, and was not estopped thereby or by any conduct of hers, in faith of which either Winfrey or Hunt acted in purchasing. The cause was heard and the bill dismissed March 10, 1884, and from that decree this appeal is prosecuted. The case made upon the pleadings and evidence appears to be as follows: Sallie S. Blackburn, then Sallie S. Buck, wife of Walter A. Buck, on the 24th day of April, 1868, purchased of one Shepard an undivided half of 973 acres of land in Desha county, Ark., partially improved, and took a title-bond stipulating for a mode of division to be made between her and her vendor, as soon as practicable, so that each should have balf the improved land, and for a conveyance in fee to Mrs. Buck when the division was made. Mrs. Buck was put in possession of an undivided half in accordance with the agreement. In June, 1868, W. A. Buck, the husband, purchased the other half of Shepard, who gave him a written memorandum evidencing the purchase. Buck then, in January, 1869, sold his half to J. S. Drake, conveying the same to him on the second day of that month by warranty deed, in which his wife, Sallie S., joined, her acknowledgment being that for relinquishment of dower.
The evidence tends to show that during 1868 Shepard executed and delivered a deed of the property to Mr. and Mrs. Buck, so drawn as to recognize their separate interests, which deed was not recorded, but in January, 1869, when Buck sold to Drake, the latter's then attorney was not satisfied, and drew another deed of the entire property for Shepard to execute,
Page 466
which he did, running directly to Walter A. Buck and Sallie S. Buck, and bearing the same date as the deed to Drake, January 2, 1869. Drake and Buck and wife farmed the land in partnership up to 1872, when, on the 7th of February of that year, Drake sold to J. T. Winfrey, and gave him an agreement to convey. In the mean time Buck died, and on the 11the day of March, 1872, Mrs. Buck filed her sworn bill in equity against the children and heirs at law of Buck, deceased, Shepard, Drake, Winfrey, and others, in the circuit court of Desha county, claiming an undivided half of the land, setting forth the ownership by her husband of the other half, his sale to Drake, and Drake's to Winfrey, and praying that her title to 'said undivided half of said property' be quieted, and for partition. Upon this bill a decree was rendered September 12, 1873, which found the purchase by Mrs. Buck of Shepard, April 24, 1868, of an undivided half of the lands, and the subsequent purchase by Buck of the other half, and Buck's sale and conveyance of 'his half of said land' to Drake, and quieted Mrs. Buck's title to an undivided half. Shepard derived title to the lands through a purchase under a deed of trust given by Henry J. Johnson to one Tate, and by mistake one parcel was omitted from the trust deed, and the mistake had been inadvertently carried through all the successive conveyances down to the Bucks. In 1872, Randolph, a judgment creditor of Johnson, had caused an execution to be levied on the omitted parcel, and Mrs. Buck and Drake filed a bill in the Desha circuit court against Randolph, Winfrey, and others, to enjoin sale upon the execution, correct the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Durand v. Hanover Ins. Grp., Inc.
...broader public interests in the observance of law and administration of justice." 449 U.S. at 389, 101 S.Ct. 677 ; Hunt v. Blackburn , 128 U.S. 464, 470, 9 S.Ct. 125, 32 L.Ed. 488 (1888). "However, it is not an absolute privilege. It applies only where necessary to achieve its purpose and p......
-
Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum, In re, 96-4108
...attorney-client privilege is the oldest of the privileges for confidential communications known to the common law"); Hunt v. Blackburn, 128 U.S. 464, 470, 9 S.Ct. 125, 127, 32 L.Ed. 488 (1888) (stating the privilege "is founded upon the necessity, in the interest and administration of justi......
-
Harrison v. State, 202
...of such communications. People v. Gallagher, 75 Mich. 512, 42 N.W. 1063; State v. Tall, 43 Minn. 273, 45 N.W. 449; Hunt v. Blackburn, 128 U.S. 464, 9 S.Ct. 125, 32 L.Ed. 488; McKinney v. Railroad Co., 104 N.Y. 352, 10 N.E. 544. But the testimony of the client or patient as to the communicat......
-
Leviton Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Shanghai Meihao Elec., Civil No. AMD 05-889.
...dating back centuries. See Upjohn v. United States, 449 U.S. 383, 389, 101 S.Ct. 677, 66 L.Ed.2d 584 (1981); Hunt v. Blackburn, 128 U.S. 464, 470, 9 S.Ct. 125, 32 L.Ed. 488 (1888); 3 Jack B. Weinstein & Margaret A. Berger, Weinstein's Federal Evidence § 503.30 (Joseph M. McLaughlin, ed., Ma......
-
Cyber Security Incidents in Multinational Companies in the EU and the US – Effective Crisis Management in Transatlantic IT Incidents
...Seit Jahrhunderten gefestigter Grundsatz des „common law“, vgl. etwa Up-john Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383 (1981), Hunt v. Blackburn, 128 U.S. 464,470 (1888); teilweise auch im Recht einzelner Bundestaaten kodifiziert, z.B. in Kali-fornien in Cal. Evid. Code Sec. 950 et seq. oder New Y......
-
SEC Commissioner Signals Need To Fulfill Mandate Of Sarbanes-Oxley Act And Develop "Minimum Standards" For Lawyers Practicing Before The Commission
...32 Basic Inc. v. Levinson, 485 U.S. 224, 250 (1988). 33 Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383, 389 (1981) (quoting Hunt v. Blackburn, 128 U.S. 464, 470 34 Rule 1.3: Diligence, American Bar Association, https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rul......
-
Table of cases
...WL 97787 (N.D. Cal. 2011), §14:01 Humphreys, Hutcheson & Moseley v. Donovan , 755 F.2d 1211 (6th Cir. 1985), §4:06 Hunt v. Blackburn , 128 U.S. 464 (1888), §§4:01, 4:03 Hurst v. United States, 123 F.R.D. 319 (D.S.D. 1988), §18:26 Hydraflow, Inc. v. Enidine, Inc ., 145 F.R.D. 626 (W.D.N.Y. 1......
-
Attorney-client privilege
...and her concerns with a lawyer without fear that her statements will be made public and used against her. See, e.g., Hunt v. Blackburn , 128 U.S. 464, 470 (1888). §4:02 Statements Made Before the Client Retains the Lawyer Generally, the attorney-client privilege applies to any statement mad......
-
Attorney-Client Privilege
...and her concerns with a lawyer without fear that her statements will be made public and used against her. See, e.g., Hunt v. Blackburn , 128 U.S. 464, 470 (1888). §4:02 Statements Made Before the Client Retains the Lawyer Generally, the attorney-client privilege applies to any statement mad......