Latta v. Granger

• Decision Date: 06 May 1895
• Docket Number: 446.
• Citation: 68 F. 69
• Parties: LATTA et al. v. GRANGER.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

68 F. 69

LATTA et al. v. GRANGER.

No. 446.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

May 6, 1895

U. M Rose (W. E. Hemingway and G. B. Rose, on the brief), for appellants.

John McClure, for appellee.

The material facts out of which this suit arises are as follows On June 26, 1875, the appellant's testator, William H Gaines, being in possession of lot sixteen (16) in block sixty-eight (68) of the city of Hot Springs, Ark., under a claim of ownership, leased the lot for one year, with the right of renewal from year to year, to Perry Huff. Huff occupied the lot under said lease until June 1, 1876, when the United States took possession of the lot as property belonging to the United States, ousted the then occupants and subsequently leased the lot to Huff through the agency of a receiver appointed by the court of claims. On March 17, 1880, Huff sold all his right, title, and interest in the lot to Vina Granger, the present appellee, and to Eva M. James, the latter persons well knowing that all of Huff's interest in the lot was derived from the aforesaid leases from Gaines and from the United States. Subsequently the commissioners appointed pursuant to the act of March 3, 1877 (19 Stat. 377, c. 108), to adjust conflicting claims to land situated within the Hot Springs reservation, awarded to Perry Huff the right to purchase the lot now in controversy, and the latter purchased the same, and received a patent therefor from the United States. After the decision in Rector v. Gibbon, 111 U.S. 276, 4 Sup.Ct. 605, to wit, on May 23, 1884, this action was begun by the present appellants, against Perry Huff, Eva M. James, and Vina Granger to compel them to transfer the legal title so as aforesaid acquired from the United States to the appellants, upon the ground that the legal title acquired by them from the government was held in trust for the appellants. A decree as prayed for was rendered by the circuit court against the appellee, Vina Granger, in April, 1887, the suit having been theretofore discontinued as against Huff and James. From said decree an appeal was prosecuted to the supreme court of the United States by the appellee. By the decision of the supreme court on such appeal the present appellants' right to the lot in controversy was established and confirmed, but the decree in their favor was reversed, because the account as to rents and profits had not been properly stated, and because the allowances in that behalf made were deemed inequitable. The decision of the supreme court is reported under the title of Goode v. Gaines, 145 U.S. 141, 154, 12 Sup.Ct. 839. The second trial of the case resulted in a decree against the appellants for $2,316.23, that being the sum which the master found had been paid by the appellee, Vina Granger, for taxes and for improvements made on the lot, and in obtaining a title to the land from the United States, over and above the sum justly chargeable to her on account of rents and profits. From the last-mentioned decree the appellants have prosecuted an appeal to this court.

Before SANBORN and THAYER, Circuit Judges.

THAYER Circuit Judge, after stating the case as above, .

The present appeal presents but two questions for our consideration. The first is whether the master should have computed the rents of the property in controversy at the rate specified in the lease from Gaines to Huff of date June 26 1875; and the second is whether the sum allowed by the master on account of rents was too small, even though the aforesaid lease does not govern in determining the rental value of the property. The appellants maintain the affirmative of both of these propositions....