James Greenleaf Lessee Plaintiff In Error v. James Birth, Defendant In Error
| Citation | 30 U.S. 132,5 Pet. 132,8 L.Ed. 72 |
| Parties | JAMES GREENLEAF'S LESSEE PLAINTIFF IN ERROR v. JAMES BIRTH, DEFENDANT IN ERROR |
| Decision Date | 01 January 1831 |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
ERROR to the circuit court of the district of Columbia, for the county of Washington.
The lessee of James Greenleaf instituted an action of ejectment in the circuit court for the county of Washington, for the recovery of lot No. 16 in Square No. 75, in the city of Washington, which suit was afterwards removed to the county of Alexandria, and was there tried in the circuit court.
Upon the trial the plaintiff gave in evidence certain duly authenticated copies of deeds, commencing in date on the 18th of June 1791, and of the allotment of the lot in question to James Greenleaf, by the commissioners of the United States, under the authority of the act of congress of 16th July 1790, establishing 'a temporary and permanent seat of the government of the United States.' Upon this evidence the plaintiff prayed the court to give certain instructions to the jury in favour of the title and possession of the lessor of the plaintiff, which were refused, and which refusal was made the ground of separate bills of exceptions. Subsequently the plaintiff gave in evidence a regular chain of title from the lord proprietor of the province of Maryland, and a good title in the lessor of the plaintiff, in the month of October 1794. The case on the part of the plaintiff was by this evidence relieved from the difficulties presented by the evidence which was offered in the first instance, and out of which arose the exceptions taken to the refusal of the court to give instructions upon that evidence.
The plaintiff also offered in evidence the survey, certificates, plots and explanations returned in this cause, and offered to prove that nineteen and a quarter acres were truly located on the plot by the lines designated by the letters E. s. g.; that the deed from Benjamin Stoddart to Gant and Beall, and the deed from Benjamin Stoddart and Uriah Forrest to James Greenleaf, the lessor of the plaintiff, comprised the land designated as aforesaid; and that the said lot No 16, in square No. 75, allotted to the lessor of the plaintiff by the said commissioners, in the said division of the said square, was also part of the land so designated; and offered parol evidence, by a competent witness, who was not present at the survey, that the lessor of the plaintiff was, in the month of October 1794, in possession of the land designated by the lines and letters E. s. g. which is now demanded, and designated on the said plot, by lot 16 in square 75, under the claim of title.
But the court refused to permit the said parol evidence to be given to the jury; the same having been objected to, on the ground of the witness not having been on the survey.
The plaintiff having established a good title in his lessor in October 1794; the defendant offered to read in evidence to the jury, for the purpose of showing that the title to the lot in question was out of the lessor of the plaintiff after the year 1794, a paper purporting to be a copy of certain proceedings under the bankrupt law of the United States, admitted to be duly authenticated; and a deed from the persons therein named as commissioners of bankruptcy to Edward S. Burd, and a deed from the said commissioners and Burd to John Miller, Jun. To the admission of which in evidence, the counsel for the plaintiff objected; and the court sustained the objection, as to the said two deeds.
And thereupon the defendant prayed the court to instruct, and the court did instruct the jury, that by the proceedings of bankruptcy, the said James Greenleaf, the lessor of the plaintiff, was divested of the legal title in and to the said lot No. 16 in the said square No. 75, in the declaration mentioned; and that the said legal estate was thereby vested in the said commissioners of bankruptcy; and rejected the said deeds as any evidence in said cause.
Whereupon the plaintiff, in addition to the evidence aforesaid, offered to read in evidence to the jury, the said deeds in the said proceedings mentioned from the said commissioners of bankruptcy to the said Edward S. Burd, and the said deed from the said commissioners and the said Edward S. Burd to the said John Miller; and also a copy of a deed, duly authenticated, from the said Miller to Samuel Eliot, Jun.; and a copy, duly authenticated, of a deed from the said S. Eliot, Jun. to James Greenleaf, the lessor of the plaintiff: which the court refused to admit to be read in evidence.
The plaintiff excepted to those several opinions of the court, and prosecuted this writ of error, to reverse the judgment of the circuit court in favour of the defendant.
The case was argued by Mr Coxe and Mr Jones, for the plaintiff in error; and by Mr Swann and Mr Key, for the defendant.
The plaintiff in error brought an action of ejectment in the circuit court for the county of Washington, in the district of Columbia, to recover a certain lot of land in the city of Washington. The general issue was pleaded; and upon the trial, the jury found a verdict for the defendant, upon which judgment was rendered in his favour. Upon that judgment the present writ of error has been brought.
At the trial several exceptions were taken, by the plaintiff, to the opinions expressed or refused by the court. As to some of these exceptions, which are thus brought before us, it is unnecessary to decide whether they are well or ill founded; because, in the progress of the cause, it is apparent, that they worked no ultimate injury to the plaintiff, since, independently of the matters therein stated, it is admitted upon the record, that the plaintiff made out a good title in his lessor, which was all which the plaintiff proposed to establish by them. And we wish it to be understood as a general rule, that where there are various bills of exceptions filed according to the local practice, if in the progress of the cause the matters of any of those exceptions become wholly immaterial to the merits, as they are finally made out at the trials, they are no longer assignable as error; however they may have been ruled in the court below. There must be some injury to the party, to make the matter generally assignable as error. Upon this ground, we shall pass over the exceptions taken to the ruling of the court in the preliminary stages of the cause, as to the title of the lessor of the plaintiff.
Another exception is founded upon the refusal of the court to admit the parol evidence of a witness, who was not present at the survey returned in the cause, to establish the fact, that the lessor of the plaintiff was, in the month of October 1794, in possession of the land designated by certain lines and letters on the plot, and demanded in the action, under the claim of title.
The ground of the decision of the court...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
National Labor Relations Board v. Air Associates
...Dehydrated Food Co., 9 Cir., 1941, 118 F.2d 980. 3 N. L. R. B. v. American Potash Corp., 9 Cir., 1938, 98 F.2d 488, 492; Greenleaf v. Birth, 5 Pet. 132, 135, 8 L.Ed. 72; Meeker v. Lehigh Valley R. Co., 236 U. S. 412, 439, 35 S.Ct. 328, 59 L.Ed. 644, Ann.Cas.1916B, 691; Kanawha & M. Railway ......
-
Cunningham v. Springer
...becomes immaterial in the progress of the cause, it cannot be assigned as error, even though the ruling was erroneous. Greenleaf v. Birth, 5 Pet. 132, 8 L. Ed. 72; Philadelphia R. R. v. Howard, 13 How. 334, 14 L. Ed. 157; Brobst v. Brock, 10 Wall. 528, 19 L. Ed. 1002; Wilson Co. v. National......
-
Estate of McDonald v. U.S.
...the "attorney" indicates joint authority. Olanrewaju v. Bankers Ins. Co., 688 So.2d 820 (Ala.Civ.App.1996); Greenleaf's Lessee v. Birth, 30 U.S. 132, 5 Pet. 132, 8 L.Ed. 72 (1831). The language appointing William and Cameron "or the survivor" as the attorney-in-fact buttresses this argument......
-
Fakhri v. Louisville-Jefferson Cnty. Metro. Gov't
...but Plaintiffs themselves submitted and relied upon Hogan's statements in purported support of their position. See Greenleaf's Lessee v. Birth, 30 U.S. 132, 135 (1831) ("In the ordinary course of things the party offering evidence is understood to wave any objection to its competency as pro......