Johnson v. Michaux
| Decision Date | 03 November 1910 |
| Citation | 66 S.E. 823,110 Va. 595 |
| Parties | JOHNSON. v. MICHAUX. |
| Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
Appeal and Error (§ 1032*)—Review—Burden op Siiowino Error.
On appeal from a decree dismissing a bill
in equity, the burden is on complainant to show error to his prejudice.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 4047-4051; Dec. Dig. § 1032.*]
Appeal from Circuit Court, Warwick County.
Action by Henry Johnson against Henry Michaux to quiet title. From a decree dismissing the bill, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
J. N. Stubbs, for appellant.
Ashby & Read, for appellee.
KEITH, P. Henry Johnson filed his bill in the circuit court of Warwick county, in which he shows that 100 acres of oyster planting ground in James river were assigned by the oyster inspector to Broadfield, Gardner, and himself, and that it was surveyed, platted, staked, and recorded in the clerk's office of the county court of Warwick county, as required by statute; that they immediately entered into the possession of the ground and commenced to improve the same by planting oysters; that Gardner relinquished his interest to Broadfield and complainant, who remained in possession until by mutual consent they made partition of said land, each taking 50 acres thereof; that the 50 acres assigned to him has remained in his actual possession from such assignment and partition up to the filing of the bill; that he had recently learned that one Henry Michaux had had recorded in the clerk's office of the circuit court of Warwick county a deed purporting to be signed, sealed, and acknowledged by complainant, conveying to him (Michaux) complainant's whole right, title, and interest in said 50 acres of ground for the sum of $250. Complainant alleges: That he never "made, signed, sealed, acknowledged, or delivered the said pretended deed to the said Michaux, and that the same, so far as it purports any signing, sealing, or acknowledging by this complainant, is a forgery, and an attempted fraud upon the vested rights of this complainant, and your complainant is advised will, upon proof of the facts hereinbefore alleged, be declared annulled, canceled, and absolutely void and of no effect." That "Michaux has, within the last few days, attempted, and is now attempting, to exercise rights of ownership over the said ground by taking oysters therefrom, to the wrong and irreparable injury of your complainant; he, the said Michaux, being wholly insolvent and financially irresponsible." The prayer of the bill is that Michaux, his employes, agents, and attorneys, may be enjoined and restrained from taking oysters from complainant's grounds, and otherwise interfering with him in the full and free use of the same.
Michaux demurred to and answered this bill, denying all of its material averments, and gives the following account of the transaction: That complainant, on the 18th day of May, 1904, gave a deed of trust or mortgage on the property in question, to secure the payment of $250 to Jessie Taylor, which deed of trust was duly signed and acknowledged by Johnson but was never recorded. That Taylor afterwards insisted that com-plainant pay the indebtedness, and offered to sell the same to respondent, who after seeing Johnson bought the same from Taylor, and on October 27, 1906, was given a deed of trust by complainant on the following property: "All that certain piece or parcel of ground consisting of one hundred acres, more or less, on the James river, staked off for oyster planting, near 'Brown's Shoals, ' in the county of Warwick, state of Virginia,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Witt v. Creasey. *
...the presumption infavor of the correctness of the decree, and to satisfy us that there was error to his prejudice. Johnson v. Michaux, 110 Va. 595, 599, 66 S. E. 823; Smith v. Alderson, 116 Va. 986, 990, 83 S. E. 373. We are of opinion that the decree should be affirmed. Affirmed. *.Reheari......
-
Crawley v. Glaze
...on the appellant to satisfy us that the decree contains reversible error. Smith v. Alderson, 116 Va. 986, 83 S. E. 373; Johnson v. Michaux, 110 Va. 595, 66 S. E. 823. This rule of decision would seem to apply with peculiar force to a question involving, as does the one now being considered,......
-
Lanford v. Va. Airline Ry. Co
...was error to his prejudice in the decree or judgment, and, failing in this, the decree or judgment will be affirmed." Johnson v. Michaux, 110 Va. 595, 66 S. E. 823. We are of opinion that the judgment complained of here is without error, and therefore it is affirmed. Affirmed. *.For other c......
-
Jayne v. Kane
...the judgment of the lower court, and the Supreme Court will not reverse unless error affirmatively appears by the record. Johnson v. Michaux, 110 Va. 595, 66 S. E. 823. We are therefore of the opinion that there is no merit in this assignment of error. The second assignment of error is to t......
-
RACE IN CONTRACT LAW.
...expectations of black ignorance" as well as Black "vulnerability" and dependence). (255) Brief for Appellee at 7-8, Johnson v. Michaux, 66 S.E. 823 (Va. 1910) (LVRC) (arguing that a party who was Black had "sufficient capacity to understand the nature of [the] business"); see also MILEWSKI,......