Jacob Le Roy, Plaintiff In Error v. William Beard

Decision Date01 January 1850
Citation8 How. 451,49 U.S. 451,12 L.Ed. 1151
PartiesJACOB LE ROY, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. WILLIAM BEARD
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

'Dear Sir,—I take the liberty of forwarding to you the following information, by advices lately received from my attorney at Milwaukie. I learn that the title of the property I purchased of you in Milwaukie, in November, 1836, has failed, in consequence of the Indian title not being extinguished when the property was floated. I further learn that the receiver or land-officer has been directed to refund the purchase-money to the original purchaser, and that the subject has been before the Solicitor of the Treasury, and he has directed that the property belongs to the government, and that an appeal was taken from his decision to the Secretary of the Treasury, who confirmed the decision.

'If so, you are doubtless aware that, upon your covenants of warranty, you are liable to refund to me the purchase-money, which I shall expect you to do, together with the interest on the same. If a deed of release or quitclaim will be of any service to you, you can have one when the money is refunded.

'I shall be happy to hear from you on the receipt of this, and any proposition you may have to make regarding the premises will be duly considered.

'Your obedient servant,

(Signed,) THEOPHILUS NICHOLS.'

'Le Roy, 2d September, 1838.

'Dear Sir,—I received last evening yours of the 28th, and the contents surprised me not a little, that I, who held large possessions in Milwaukie, and in constant communication with that place, should receive the first intelligence of so great a misfortune from you. I received a letter three days ago from that place, but not a word is said about any trouble, and I have therefore come to the conclusion your agent has been hoaxed; the whole statement carries on the face of it an absurdity. Admitting that any thing had occurred as you state, have not the United States received the same amount there from their land as they have elsewhere? Do you imagine that Congress would allow innocent persons to suffer in a case of that kind? I have written to Milwaukie by this day's mail to ascertain if there is any difficulty, and in the interim would beg you to keep easy in mind, for you may rest assured that your title will never be disturbed.

'Respectfully, yours, truly,

(Signed,) JACOB LE ROY.'

'New York, 12th June, 1839.

'THEOPHILUS NICHOLS, ESQ.:——

'Sir,—Your letter of the 1st instant was returned to me this day from Le Roy. In reply I state, that the title to the lands purchased from me is derived from the United States, and I know of no mode by which a sale can be rescinded by any officer of the government after it has been once consummated. If any error has been committed, of which I have no information upon which reliance ought to be placed in transactions of business, the government will no doubt correct it. Besides, as my grantor is liable to me if there is any defect of title. I can make no...

To continue reading

Request your trial
44 cases
  • McArthur v. Maryland Casvalts Co.
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • February 6, 1939
    ... ... dismissing the bill, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed ... Affirmed ... suggestion of error. It would seem that this authority is ... Pet.), 378, 10 L.Ed. 209; LeRoy v. Beard, 49 U.S. (8 ... How.), 451, 12 L.Ed. 1151; ... ...
  • Lefebure v. American Express Co.
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • February 21, 1913
    ...other states. Hoadley v. Trans. Co., 115 Mass. 304 (15 Am. Rep. 106); Downer v. Chesebrough, 36 Conn. 39 (4 Am. Rep. 29); Le Roy v. Beard, 8 HOW 451 (12 L.Ed. 1151). us look then to our own decisions upon that question. In Mulligan v. R. R. Co., 36 Iowa 181, this court said: As to the effec......
  • Mercer County State Bank of Manhaven, a Corp. v. Hayes
    • United States
    • North Dakota Supreme Court
    • August 8, 1916
    ...20 Neb. 112, 29 N.W. 189; Bowne v. Wolcott, 1 N.D. 415, 48 N.W. 336; Carroll v. Safford, 3 How. 441, 11 L.Ed. 671; Le Roy v. Beard, 8 How. 451, 12 L.Ed. 1151; Pollard v. Dwight, 4 Cranch, 421, 2 L.Ed. Zent v. Picken, 54 Iowa 535, 6 N.W. 750. A covenant against encumbrances is a personal obl......
  • Kansas City Southern Railway Co. v. Cook
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • October 23, 1911
    ... ... it must be resolved against the plaintiff ...          Where a ... party brings ... are numerous other assignments of error ... ...
  • 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