John Whitcomb v. John White

• Decision Date: 17 May 1909
• Docket Number: No. 185,185
• Citation: 214 U.S. 15,53 L.Ed. 889,29 S.Ct. 599
• Parties: JOHN B. WHITCOMB, Surviving Partner of the Firm of Moses P. Whitcomb and John B. Whitcomb, Copartners as Whitcomb Brothers, et al., Plffs. in Err., v. JOHN E. WHITE and Roberta B. White
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

214 U.S. 15

29 S.Ct. 599

53 L.Ed. 889

JOHN B. WHITCOMB, Surviving Partner of the Firm of Moses P. Whitcomb and John B. Whitcomb, Copartners as Whitcomb Brothers, et al., Plffs. in Err.,

v JOHN E. WHITE and Roberta B. White.

No. 185.

Argued April 28, 29, 1909.

Decided May 17, 1909.

This was an action brought by John E. White and Roberta B. White, his wife, in the district court of the first judicial district of the state of Idaho, in and for the county of Kootenai, to recover the possession of the 'northwest quarter of the southwest quarter and lots five (5), six (6), and seven (7), of section two (2), township fifty-five (55) north of range two (2) east, Boise meridian.'

The defendants' answer was in the nature of a cross bill in equity, admitting that the legal title to the premises was in the plaintiffs, and seeking to charge them as holders of that title in trust for the use and benefit of the defendants. A trial before the court without a jury resulted in a judgment for the plaintiffs for the recovery of possession, and damages for the detention. On appeal to the supreme court of the state, the award of damages was set aside, but the judgment for the recovery of possession was affirmed. Thereupon the case was brought here on error.

The plaintiffs' title was a patent from the United States to plaintiff John E. White, based upon a homestead entry. The defendants claimed to have been occupants of the premises as a town site, and that therefore the land was not subject to entry as a homestead. The application for the homestead entry was formally made at the land office a few hours before that of the probate judge of the county, acting under the statutes as trustee for the occupants of the town site. A contest was had in the local land office, which resulted in a finding in favor of the plaintiff John E. White. This decision was sustained by the Commissioner of the General Land Office and affirmed by the Secretary of the Interior.

Mr. Albert Allen for plaintiffs in error.

Messrs. George H. Lamar and H. M. Stephens for defendants in error.

Statement by Mr. Justice Brewer:

Mr. Justice Brewer delivered the opinion of the court:

The decision of the Land Department was not rested solely upon the fact that White's formal application was filed a few hours before that of the trustee for the occupants of the town site, but rather chiefly upon the priority of the former's equitable rights. So far as such decision involves questions of fact, it is conclusive upon the courts. Johnson v. Towsley, 13 Wall. 72, 86, 20 L. ed. 485, 487; Shepley v. Cowan, 91 U. S. 330, 340, 23 L. ed. 424, 427; Marquez v. Frisbie, 101 U. S. 473, 476, 25 L. ed. 800, 801; Quinby v. Conlan, 104 U. S. 420, 425, 426, 26 L. ed. 800, 802; Burfenning v. Chicago, St. P. M. & O. R. Co. 163 U. S. 321, 323, 41 L. ed. 175, 176, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1018; De Cambra v. Rogers, 186 U. S. 119, 120, 47 L. ed. 734, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 519.

And this rule is applied in cases where there is a mixed question of law and fact, unless the court is able to so separate the question as to see clearly what and where the mistake of law is. As said by Mr. Justice Miller in Marquez v. Frisbie, supra, p. 476:

'This means, and it is a sound principle, that where there is a mixed question of law and of fact, and the court cannot so separate it as to see clearly where the mistake of law is, the decision of the tribunal to which the law has confided the matter is conclusive.' Quinby v. Conlan, supra, 426.

Further, the 38th and 39th findings of the trial court, which were not disturbed by the supreme court in its opinion, were:

'38. That the officers of the Interior Department did not exclude any testimony, and there was in said Land Office and said Department a full, fair, and complete hearing.

'39. That the officers of said Interior Department, of said Land Office, or any or either of them, were not guilty of any fraud or any unlawful conduct.'

Clearly, the findings of the Land Department cannot be disregarded, especially since they are reinforced by the judgment of the state courts. This court ought not to reverse such judgment except upon the clearest and most convincing evidence of mistake or...