Lyon v. Pollock
Citation | 99 U.S. 668,25 L.Ed. 265 |
Parties | LYON v. POLLOCK |
Decision Date | 01 October 1878 |
Court | United States Supreme Court |
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Western District of Texas.
The appellant, Lyon, in 1873, recovered judgment in the Circuit Court of the United States against the appellees, Pollock and wife, in an action for two parcels or lots of land situated in the city of San Antonio, in the State of Texas. Thereupon the appellees brought the present suit on the equity side of the court to enjoin the enforcement of the judgment, and to compel a conveyance to them of the title to the land; or, if that relief could not be granted, to obtain a decree for the value of their improvements, in accordance with a statute of the State.
The bill of complaint states, as grounds for relief, that the judgment was obtained upon the trial of the legal title, and that their rights are of an equitable nature, constituting an equitable title to the land. It sets forth that on the 24th of August, 1865, Lyon, being owner of the lots, executed an instrument, a copy of which is appended and made part of the bill, authorizing one I. A. Paschal to sell any and all real estate of which he, Lyon, was then seised in the county of Bexar, in Texas, and that the premises in controversy are a portion of this property; that previously, and up to the 1st of July, 1865, one W. A. Bennett had been the attorney and agent of Lyon, having full power to manage, control, and sell all or any portion of his property, real or personal; that about this time Bennett transferred the business of his agency to Paschal, and communicated the fact to Lyon; that the latter thereupon executed the instrument mentioned; that after this transfer and the delivery of the instrument, Paschal was treated and recognized by him as his duly authorized agent and attorney; and, as such, he sold the premises in controversy to the complainants in October, 1865, for the sum of $425, and executed a conveyance to them.
The bill further states that Lyon subsequently made no claim to the lots, but acquiesced in their sale, and did not attempt to exercise any control over them, nor pay any taxes on them; that the complainants at once took possession of the lots, and have since been in their undisturbed use and enjoyment, claiming the same as their own, and have paid the State, city, and county taxes, and have made permanent improvements on them of the value of $6,250; that the lots sold for their full value; and that Paschal used the money received from the sale, with Lyon's consent, in part payment of assessments on stock owned by him in the San Antonio Gas Company, a corporation existing in the county of Bexar.
The instrument mentioned in the bill as authorizing Paschal to sell Lyon's real estate is a letter of Lyon, of which the following is a copy, omitting immaterial portions:——
'MONTEREY, Aug. 24, 1865.
'I. A. PASCHAL:
'Most respectfully yours,
'I. L. LYONS.'
The previous power of attorney to W. A. Bennett authorized him to take charge of and control all Lyon's property of every kind, real and personal, in the county of Bexar, in Texas, and to sell and convey the same upon such terms and upon such conditions as he might deem best, and to collect and receipt for all debts, rents, and profits due or to become due to Lyon, and to represent him in all matters relating to the stock of the gas company.
The answer of Lyon to the bill admits that on the 24th of August, 1865, he was the owner of the lots in controversy; that prior to the 1st of August of that year, W. A. Bennett was his lawful agent and attorney, authorized to manage his property, and sell it or any part of it; and that prior to the 24th of that month he transferred his papers to Paschal for safe-keeping; but it denies that the letter of attorney from him to Bennett contained any power of substitution. It admits the writing of the letter by him to Paschal acknowledging the receipt of Bennett's letter, informing him of the transfer of the papers; but denies that he conferred, or intended by it to confer, any authority to sell the property, or that he ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Landskroener v. Henning
...363;Peterson v. O'Connor, 106 Minn. 470, 119 N. W. 243,130 Am. St. Rep. 618;Jackson v. Badger, 35 Minn. 52, 26 N. W. 908; Lyons v. Pollock, 99 U. S. 668, 25 L. Ed. 265;Littlefield v. Dawson, 47 Wash. 644, 92 Pac. 428;Johnson v. Dodge, 17 Ill. 433;Vanada v. Hopkins, 1 J. J. Marsh. (Ky.) 285,......
-
Brinkerhoff v. Juden
...193 Mo. 129; Barry v. Rownd, 119 Iowa 105; McCain v. Finance & Trust Co., 29 Ky. L.R. 1292; Parish v. Camplin, 139 Ind. 1; Lyon v. Pollock, 99 U.S. 668; Ezell Peyton, 134 Mo. 490; Hill v. Kuhlman, 87 F. 500; Norris v. Sargeant, 126 Mich. 557. Edward A. Rozier and Martin L. Clardy for respon......
-
Hubbard v. Kansas City Stained Glass Works & Sign Company
...into a contract in the form of a title bond, and as a contract of sale it will be enforced. Vanada v. Hopkins, 1 J. J. Marsh. 292; Lyon v. Pollock, 99 U.S. 668; v. Marks, 47 Cal. 243. (3) Possession was delivered, and the Statute of Frauds has no bearing on the case. If she or her grantees ......
-
Glass v. Rowe
... ... contract of sale valid and binding. Stewart v. Wood , ... 63 Mo. 252; Smith v. Allen , 86 Mo. 178; Lyon v ... Pollock , 99 U.S. 668, 25 L.Ed. 265. So as to this first ... proposition of the appellant, we must rule that, if it shall ... appear that ... ...