Hutchinson Invest Co v. Caldwell

Decision Date05 March 1894
Docket NumberNo. 190,190
Citation14 S.Ct. 504,38 L.Ed. 356,152 U.S. 65
PartiesHUTCHINSON INVEST. CO. et al. v. CALDWELL
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Statement by Mr. Chief Justice FULLER:

This was an action brought by John Caldwell against D. B. Miller (for whom the Hutchinson Investment Company was substituted) and L. B. Miller in the district court for Reno county, Kan., to have his title established and recover possession of the northeast quarter of section 12, township 23 S., R. 6 W., in that county. The case was submitted to the district court for trial, a jury being waived, and the court made special findings of fact, and gave judgment in favor of the defendants, whereupon the cause was taken on error to the supreme court of Kansas. The supreme court reversed the judgment of the court below, and remanded the cause with a direction to enter judgment upon the findings of fact in favor of Caldwell and against the defendants for an undivided 13-28 of the land and damages for its detention, (23 Pac. 946;) and thereupon this writ of error was brought.

The facts necessary to be stated were, in brief, these: Robert Titus was married to Phoebe Thomas in Vermont in 1809, and the sole issue of this marriage was Alden W. Titus, born in October, 1810. After the birth of this son, Robert Titus, having gone into the War of 1812, abandoned both wife and child, and, in 1818, without having obtained a divorce, had a marriage ceremony performed between him and Miriam Lee in the state of New York. By her he had five children, of whom the youngest was a daughter, Lois, who married D. B. Miller. From 1850, Robert Titus lived with Mr. and Mrs. Miller, and in 1871 the family went to Reno county, Kan., and settled there. July 10, 1871, Robert Titus made a pre-emption entry upon the land in controversy, but died before consummating his pre-emption claim. After his death, D. B. Miller, administrator of his estate, filed the necessary papers to complete the pre-emption, paying the price thereof, $400, to the United States, with his own money, and, April 20, 1874, a patent to the land was issued, to the effect that 'the United States of America, in consideration of the premises and in conformity with the several acts of congress in such cases made and provided, have given and granted, and by these presents do give and grant, unto the said heirs of Robert Titus, deceased, and to their heirs, the tract above described, to have and to hold the same, together with all the rights, privileges, immunities, and appurtenances of whatsoever nature belonging, unto the said heirs of Robert Titus, deceased, and to their heirs and assigns forever.' The children of Robert Titus and Miriam Lee were notoriously recognized by Robert Titus as his own, and no question was ever raised as to their legitimacy until in this suit. D. B. Miller claimed the fee simple title to the land by conveyances from the heirs of Alden W. Titus, as the only heir of Robert Titus, deceased; and if the children of Robert Titus and Miriam Lee were heirs, within the meaning of section 2269 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, then Caldwell was entitled to recover an undivided 13-28 of the land, and damages. The opinion of the supreme court of Kansas, by Horton, C. J., is reported in 44 Kan. 12, 23 Pac. 946.

Almervin Gillett, for plaintiffs.

S. B. Bradford and W. E. Brown, for defendant.

Mr. Chief FULLER, after stating the facts in the foregoing language, delivered the opinion of the court.

By the statutes of Kansas, which was the state of the domicile of Robert Titus at the time of his death, and of the location of the real estate in controversy, illegitimate children could inherit from their father when they had been recognized by him, provided such recognition was general and notorious, or in writing. Gen. St. Kan. p. 786, c. 33, §§ 22, 23. Under the circumstances disclosed on this record, therefore, the grantees in a deed to the heirs of Robert Titus, and to their heirs, would have embraced the children of Miriam Lee and their heirs, and this would be so as respects this patent, unless section 2269 of the Revised Statutes, under which it was issued, provided otherwise.

The section reads: 'Where a party entitled to claim the benefits of the pre-emption laws dies before consummating his claim, by filing in due time all the papers essential to the establishment of the same, it shall be competent for the executor or administrator of the estate of such party, or one of the heirs, to file the necessary papers to complete the same; but the entry in such cases shall be made in favor of the heirs of the deceased pre-emptor, and a patent thereon shall cause the title to inure to such heirs as if their names had been specially mentioned.' We are unable to concur with counsel for plaintiffs in error that the intention should be ascribed to congress of limiting the words 'heirs of the deceased pre-emptor,' as used in the section, to persons who would be heirs at common law, (children not born in lawful matrimony being, therefore, excluded,) rather than those who might be such according to the lex rei sitae, by which, generally speaking, the question of the descent and heirship of real estate is exclusively...

To continue reading

Request your trial
29 cases
  • Plaza Amusement Co. v. Rothenberg
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • December 15, 1930
    ...25 L.Ed. 888; De Vaughn v. Hutchinson, 41 L.Ed. 827; Green v. Riddle, 50 L.Ed. 547; Olmstead v. Olmstead, 54 L.Ed. 530; Investment Company v. Caldwell, 38 L.Ed. 356; v. Griggs, 33 L.Ed. 918; U. S. v. I. C. R. R. Co., 38 L.Ed. 971. The consideration for the notes sued on, was the lease contr......
  • Frost-Johnson Lumber Co. v. Salling's Heirs
    • United States
    • Louisiana Supreme Court
    • May 2, 1921
    ... ... 315, 24 ... L.Ed. 192; Brine v. Hartford Ins. Co., 96 U.S. 627, ... 24 L.Ed. 858; Hutchinson Invest. Co. v. Caldwell, ... 152 U.S. 65, 14 S.Ct. 504, 38 L.Ed. 356; De Vaughn v ... ...
  • United States v. Thompson
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Arkansas
    • June 4, 1919
    ... ... 192; Clarke v. Clarke, 178 ... U.S. 186, 191, 20 Sup.Ct. 873, 44 L.Ed. 1028; Hutchinson ... Investment Co. v. Caldwell, 152 U.S. 65, 68, 14 Sup.Ct ... 504, 38 L.Ed. 356 ... ...
  • Hays v. Wyatt
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • March 17, 1911
    ..."devisee" in the homestead act is significant and was done for the purpose of indicating the order in which they might take. (Hutchinson Inv. Co. v. Caldwell, supra.) Z. Johnson and S. H. Hays, for Respondent. "Sec. 2291, U. S. Rev. Stats., provides for the issuance of patent after satisfac......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT