John Orton, Appellant v. George Smith
| Citation | 18 How. 263,59 U.S. 263,15 L.Ed. 393 |
| Parties | JOHN J. ORTON, APPELLANT, v. GEORGE SMITH |
| Decision Date | 01 December 1855 |
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
THIS was an appeal from the district court of the United States, for the district of Wisconsin.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
It was argued by Mr. Gillett and Mr. Lynde, for the appellant, and Mr. Brown, for the appellee. There was also a brief filed on the same side by Mr. Upham.
The points made by the counsel were so interwoven with the facts, that they cannot be presented abstractedly.
The bill, in this case, is in the nature of a 'bill of peace,' as authorized by the statutes of Wisconsin. Smith, the claimant below, claimed to be owner of certain lands, to which Orton claimed also to have some title. The bill prays an injunction against Orton, to prohibit him from setting up his claim, and thereby 'casting a cloud' over the good legal title of complainant.
The facts of the case are somewhat complex, and its merits will be better apprehended by a succinct history of them, as elicited from the pleadings and evidence.
Hubbard had settled in Wisconsin, having escaped from his creditors, with some pecuniary means, which he thought it prudent to conceal. Hence, though he speculated in the purchase and sale of lands, the title to them was held by friends. He had contracted to sell certain lots in Milwaukie to Schram. But Schram would not pay his money without a good legal title, or good security that it should be conveyed to him. Hubbard resided in the family of his friend Butler, and being addicted to idleness and intemperance, he confided the management of his affairs, in a great measure, to Butler. Schram would not pay his money on the security of Butler or the promise of Hubbard to obtain a title; and one Knab at length was prevailed on to enter into a bond with Butler, conditioned that a good legal title should be made to Schram for the lots. But Knab was unwilling to enter into this bond without security also. For this purpose the land in-dispute in this suit was conveyed to him in fee by one Cyrus D. Davis, who held the legal title as friend and trustee of Hubbard. This deed was put on record by Knab, who, at the same time, gave his title-bond covenanting to convey the land to Butler, when the covenants of their bond to Schram would be satisfied or released. This title-bond was not given to Davis, because he claimed no beneficial interest in the land; nor to Hubbard, because his policy required him not to appear to have any title to property; but to Butler, the friend and active agent of Hubbard. Notwithstanding the testimony of Butler, that he paid Hubbard for the land, and did not hold as secret trustee for him, the fact may be considered doubtful; and it is not necessary to decide it, in our view of the present case. Hubbard is now seceased: but in his lifetime he assigned, for the consideration of one dollar, all his interest in the land in dispute to one Gruenhagen, (under whom Smith, the complainant, claims,) by deed dated in June, 1851.
On the 22d of February, 1851, Butler assigned to Orton, the defendant, the title-bond of Knab for the consideration of $2,100. This consideration has been paid without any knowledge or notice of any secret equity in Hubbard; and the covenants of the bond to Schram being fulfilled or released, Orton filed his bill in chancery on the 6th of August, 1851, against Knab, demanding from him a conveyance of the legal title according to the exigency of his bond.
During the pendency of this bill, which would settle the legal and equitable rights of all persons having any claim to the land in dispute, the complainant, Smith, becomes the purchased of the real or supposed secret equity of Hubbard. And not only so, but he has obtained from Knab the transfer of the legal title for a nominal consideration; thereby substituting himself in the place of Knab in the contest pending in the state court. The charge of fraud made in the bill, because Knab's title-bond was made to Butler and not to Hubbard, is not substantiated. It was a matter of indifference to Knab whether Hubbard or Butler held the bond. He had no concern with the private arrangements or secret trusts between them. When the condition of his bond to Schram was released, Knab was bound to convey to Butler, by the exigency of his own contract, and could not make himself a judge of the equities between Butler and Hubbard. His assignment to Smith, under the circumstances, could...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. American Bell Tel. Co.
...except to avoid a multiplicity of suits, in cases where the decision on the bill to cancel will be binding on all the parties, (Orton v. Smith, 18 How. 263;) or in where the facts showing invalidity rest merely in the memory of living witnesses, and the suit to enforce the contract may be d......
-
Wood v. Phillips
...title in the plaintiff. Alexander v. Pendleton, 8 Cranch, 462 3 L. Ed. 624; Peirsoll v. Elliott, 6 Pet. 95 8 L. Ed. 332; Orton v. Smith, 18 How. 263 15 L. Ed. 393; Crews v. Burcham, 1 Black, 352 17 L. Ed. 91; Ward v. Chamberlain, 2 Black, 430 17 L. Ed. 319. As observed by Mr. Justice Grier ......
-
Wilhelm v. Consolidated Oil Corporation
...or to execute a relief to the plaintiff. Langd.Eq.Pl.(2d Ed.) §§ 43, 184; Massie v. Watts, 6 Cranch, 148 3 L.Ed. 181; Orton v. Smith, 18 How. 263 15 L.Ed. 393; Vandever v. Freeman, 20 Tex. 333 334 70 Am.Dec. "It would doubtless be within the power of the state in which the land lies to prov......
-
Toucey v. New York Life Ins Co Phoenix Finance Corporation v. Bridge Co
...the lien of a prior attachment made under state law, was the first case which expressly relied upon the Act of 1793. In Orton v. Smith, 18 How. 263, 266, 15 L.Ed. 393, the Court held it error to enjoin a state action to establish title to certain land. 'The courts of the United States have ......