Lansdale v. Smith
Decision Date | 18 December 1882 |
Citation | 106 U.S. 391,27 L.Ed. 219,1 S.Ct. 350 |
Parties | LANSDALE, Adm'x, etc., v. SMITH and others |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
[Syllabus from page 391 intentionally omitted]
[Statement of the Case on Pages 391-392 intentionally omitted] C. P. Culver, Jesup Miller, C. G. Lee and H. O. Claughton, for appellants.
Jas. S. Edwards and Job Barnard, for appellee.
It has been a recognized doctrine of courts in equity, from the very beginning of their jurisdiction, to withhold relief from those who have delayed for an unreasonable length of time in asserting their claims. Elmendorf v. Taylor, 10 Wheat. 168; Piatt v. Vattier, 9 Pet. 416; Maxwell v. Kennedy, 8 How. 222; Badger v. Badger, 2 Wall. 94; Cholmondeley v. Clinton, 2 Jac. & W. 114; 2 Story, Eq. Jur. § 1520. In Wagner v. Baird, 7 How. 259, it was said that long acquiescence and laches by parties out of possession are productive of much hardship and injustice to others, and is not to be excused except by showing some actual hindrance or impediment, caused by the fraud or concealment of the party in possession. The case must be one which appeals to the conscience of the chancellor.
And, contrary to the view pressed in argument, a defense grounded upon the staleness of the claim asserted, or upon the gross laches of the party asserting it, may be made by demurrer, not, necessarily, by plea or answer. A different rule has been announced by some authors, and in some adjudged cases; generally, however, upon the authority of Earl of Deloraine v. Browne, 3 Brown, Ch. 633. Lord THURLOW, who decided that case, is reported to have declared, when overruling a demurrer to a bill charging fraudulent representations as to the value of an estate, and praying an account of rents, profits, etc., that his action was based upon the ground that length of time, proprio jure, was no reason for a demurrer; that it was only a conclusion from facts, showing acquiescence, and was not matter of law; and that he could not allow a party to avail himself of an inference from facts on a demurrer. But in Hovenden v. Lord Annesley, 2 Schoales & L. 637, decided in 1806, Rord REDESDALE expressed his disapproval of the decision of Lord THURLOW, as reported by Brown, and said that it was rendered in a hurry, when the latter was about to surrender the seals, and when much injury might have been done to parties had judgments not been given before the latter retired from office. The rule, as announced in Hovenden v. Lord Annesley, was, That, the court said, was matter of the law of a court of equity, to be determined according to its rules and principles.
Such is, undoubtedly, the established doctrine of this court as announced in many cases. In Maxwell v. Kennedy, supra, the court, speaking by Chief Justice TANEY, approved the rule as announced by Lord REDESDALE. After referring to Piatt v. Vattier, supra, and to McKnight v. Taylor, 1 How. 168, and Bowman v. Wathen, Id. 189, it was said that In the more recent case of Badger v. Badger, supra, the court, speaking by Mr. Justice GRIER, said that a party, who makes an appeal to the conscience of the chancellor, 'should set forth in his bill specifically what were the impediments to an earlier prosecution of his claim; how he came to be so long ignorant of his rights, and the means used by the respondent to fraudulently keep him in ignorance; and how and when he first came to a knowledge of the matters alleged in his bill; otherwise the chancellor may justly refuse to consider his case, on his own showing, without inquiry whether there is a demurrer or formal plea of the statute of limitations contained in the answer.' Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 15 Pet. 233.
These principles are decisive of the case before us.
By duly-recorded deed of July 18, 1818, signed by John P. Van Ness (his wife uniting in the conveyance) and by Noah Stinchcomb, the former conveyed to the latter, at a fixed annual rent, lot 3, square 455, in the city of Washington, to have and to hold, etc., unto Stinchcomb, his executors, administrators, and assigns, for the term of 90 years, renewable forever. Stinchcomb entered under the deed, made valuable improvements upon the lot, and remained in possession until the year 1833 or 1834, when Van Ness repossessed himself of the premises, in virtue of a clause in the deed in these words:
'Provided, always, that if the said rent or any part thereof shall be in arrear and unpaid for the space of 30 days next after the time at which the same is reserved to be paid, as above, being first...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States v. American Bell Tel. Co.
... ... Miller v. Kerr, 7 Wheat. 1; ... U.S. v. Atherton, 102 U.S. 372; Sullivan v ... Railroad Co., 94 U.S. 806; Lansdale v. Smith, ... 106 U.S. 391, 1 S.Ct. 350; Stearns v. Page, 7 How ... 819, 829; Moore v. Greene, 2 Curt.C.C. 202, 19 How ... 69; Badger v ... ...
-
Just v. Idaho Canal & Improvement Co., Ltd.
... ... Wood , 164 U.S. 502, 17 S.Ct. 176, 41 L.Ed. 531; ... Sullivan v. Railway Co. , 94 U.S. 806, 24 L.Ed. 324; ... Landsdale v. Smith , 106 U.S. 391, 1 S.Ct. 350, 27 ... L.Ed. 219; Whitney v. Fox , 166 U.S. 637, 17 S.Ct ... 713, 41 L.Ed. 1145; Abraham v. Ordway , 158 U.S. 416, ... ...
-
Oregon Short Line Railraod Co. v. Quigley
... ... Johnson, 58 Wis. 414, 17 N.W. 246; McIndoe v ... Morman, 26 Wis. 588, 7 Am. Rep. 96; Herman on Estoppel, ... sec. 234; Smith v. Knowles, 2 Grant Cas. (Pa.) 413; ... Lewis v. Castleman, 27 Tex. 407; Wright v ... Douglas, 7 N.Y. 564; Cohoes Co. v. Gross, 13 ... Wood, 164 U.S. 502-524, 17 ... S.Ct. 176, 41 L.Ed. 531; Sullivan v. Portland & K. R. R ... Co., 94 U.S. 806-811, 24 L.Ed. 324; Lansdale v ... Smith, 106 U.S. 391-394, 1 S.Ct. 350, 27 L.Ed. 219; ... Whitney v. Fox, 166 U.S. 637-648, 17 S.Ct. 713, 41 ... L.Ed. 1145; Abraham v ... ...
-
Patterson v. Hewitt
...U. S. 502, 524, 17 Sup. Ct. 176, 41 L. Ed. 531; Sullivan v. Railroad Co., 94 U. S. 806, 811, 24 L. Ed. 324; Lansdale v. Smith, 106 U. S. 391, 394, 1 Sup. Ct. 350, 27 L. Ed. 219; Badger v. Badger, 2 Wall. 87, 95, 17 L. Ed. 836; Lane & Bodley Co. v. Locke, 159 U. S. 193, 14 Sup. Ct. 78, 37 L.......