Nickles v. United States

• Decision Date: 24 May 1890
• Citation: 42 F. 757
• Parties: NICKLES v. UNITED STATES.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri

42 F. 757

NICKLES v. UNITED STATES.

United States Circuit Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division.

May 24, 1890

Harmon J. Bliss, for plaintiff.

Geo. D Reynolds, U.S. Dist. Atty., for defendant.

This is an action against the government under the act of March 3 1887, (24 U.S.St. 505,) and it has been submitted for decision on an agreed statement of facts, which obviates the necessity of any special findings, as would otherwise be required by the seventh section of the act. For a proper understanding of the case, it will suffice to say that the agreed statement shows, in substance, that on September 4 1876, Oliver A. Patton and V. M. C. Silva, who were at the time respectively register and receiver of the United States land-office for the district of Utah, seized certain lumber for and in behalf of the United States, and advertised it for sale as government property which they had the right, as agents for the government, to so seize, advertise, and sell. In point of fact they had no right to seize the lumber in question, as it was at the time private property, belonging to one Daniel H. Wells. On September 16, 1876, Wells brought a suit in replevin for the property, and, under the writ issued in that case, it was restored to his (Wells') possession on the 25th of the same month. Three days thereafter, September 28, 1876, Patton and Silva sold the property pursuant to advertisement, though it was then in Wells' possession, and the plaintiff in this case, John Nickles, became the purchaser at the price of $1,016, which he then and there paid to the agents of the government. At the time of the purchase Nickles knew that Wells claimed to be the absolute owner of the property, but he did not know the manner in which he had acquired title to the same, if that is at all material. Not being able to otherwise obtain possession of the lumber, Nickles, on October 7, 1876 brought a suit in replevin against Wells in the territorial court of Utah. He succeeded in that court in obtaining a judgment against Wells for the value of the lumber, but does not appear to have obtained or had the actual possession of the same at any time after his purchase. Wells appealed from the judgment so rendered against him to the supreme court of the United States, where the judgment of the territorial court in Nickles' favor was reversed and annulled on January 16, 1882. Vide 104 U.S. 444. It is sufficient to say that the decision of the supreme court of the United States in Wells v. Nickles conclusively determined that Wells was the owner of the property in controversy at the time of the sale by Patton and Silva, and that Nickles acquired no title by virtue of that sale. Though this decision was promulgated on January 16, 1882, the mandate does not appear to have been filed in the territorial court until January 29, 1884. The present suit was begun by Nickles on January 22, 1890, and there is a plea of the statute of limitations by the United States.

THAYER J.,

(after stating the facts

...