Patterson Land Co. v. Lynn
| Decision Date | 06 March 1914 |
| Docket Number | 81912 |
| Court | North Dakota Supreme Court |
Rehearing denied April 11, 1914.
Appeal from district Court of Emmons County, Winchester, J.
Reversed.
Watson & Young, for appellant, and Durment, Moore, & Oppenheimer and Ashley Coffman, of counsel.
A state's attorney of a county, having been its legal adviser, and especially in the matter of the county acquiring title to lands, and later in quieting the title, is estopped to acquire or assert an interest in such lands adverse to the county or to its grantees, and any interest he may have acquired is for their benefit. 4 Cyc. 958; 3 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 344, 2d ed.; Weeks, Attorneys at Law, 2d ed. § 121; Yerkes v. Crum, 2 N.D. 72, 49 N.W. 422.
In some cases this rule has been relaxed, so that where an attorney so acts, the transaction is presumed to be fraudulent, and the burden rests upon the attorney to establish the fairness adequacy, and equity of the transaction. Bingham v Salene, 15 Ore. 208, 3 Am. St. Rep. 152, 14 P. 523; Dunn v. Dunn, 42 N.Y. Eq. 431, 7 A. 842; Cowee v. Cornell, 75 N.Y. 100, 31 Am. Rep. 428; Nesbit v Lockman, 34 N.Y. 167; Re Freerks, 11 N.D. 120, 90 N.W. 265; Weeks, Attorneys at Law, § 271; Rev. Codes 1899, § 427; Henry v. Raiman, 25 Pa. 354, 64 Am. Dec. 703; Reid v. Stanley, 6 Watts & S. 376; Baker v. Humphrey, 101 U.S. 494, 25 L.Ed. 1065; May v. Le Claire, 11 Wall. 217, 20 L.Ed. 50; Galbraith v. Elder, 8 Watts, 81; Smith v. Brotherline, 62 Pa. 461; Hoopes v. Burnett, 26 Miss. 428; Jett v. Hempstead, 25 Ark. 462; Fox v. Cooper, 2 Q. B. 937, 6 Jur. 128; Taylor v. Blacklow, 3 Bing. N.C. 235, 3 Scott, 614, 2 Hodges, 224, 6 L. J. C. P. N. S. 14.
An attorney in the employ of another cannot buy and hold property in which his client is interested, otherwise than in trust, where his employment relates to such property. Smith v. Brotherline, 62 Pa. 461; Davis v. Smith, 43 Vt. 269; Wheeler v. Willard, 44 Vt. 641; Giddings v. Eastman, 5 Paige, 561; Moore v. Bracken, 27 Ill. 23; Harper v. Perry, 28 Iowa 57; Hockenbury v. Carlisle, 5 Watts & S. 348; Hobday v. Peters, 6 Jur. N. S. 754, 28 Beav. 349, 29 L. J. Ch. N. S. 780, 2 L. T. N. S. 590, 8 Week. Rep. 512; Jett v. Hempstead, 25 Ark. 462; Case v. Carroll, 35 N.Y. 385; Lewis v. Hillman, 3 H. L. Cas. 607.
Actual fraud is not necessary in such case to give the client redress. A breach of duty is constructive fraud, and is sufficient. Story, Eq. Jur. §§ 258, 311; Sanford v. Flint, 108 Minn. 399, 122 N.W. 315; Doster v. Scully, 27 F. 782.
An attorney employed to prepare a deed for land, or consulted in relation to the same and to the title, is precluded from buying in, for his own use, any outstanding title. Smith v. Brotherline, 62 Pa. 461; Galbraith v. Elder, 8 Watts, 94; Cleavinger v. Reimen, 3 Watts & S. 486; Henry v. Raiman, 25 Pa. 354, 64 Am. Dec. 703; Downard v. Hadley, 116 Ind. 131, 18 N.E. 457; 1 Perry, Tr. & Trustees, § 166; Gibbons v. Hoag, 95 Ill. 45; Ainsworth v. Harding, 22 Idaho 645, 128 P. 92; Davis v. Kline, 96 Mo. 401, 2 L.R.A. 78, 9 S.W. 724; Ringo v. Binns, 10 Pet. 269, 280, 9 L.Ed. 420, 425; United States v. Costen, 38 F. 24; Re Boone, 83 F. 944; Phillips v. Blair, 38 Iowa 653; Larey v. Baker, 86 Ga. 468, 12 S.E. 684; Carter v. Palmer, 8 Clark & F. 657, 11 Bligh. N. R. 397; Kennedy v. Redwine, 59 Ga. 327; Hatton v. Robinson, 14 Pick. 416, 25 Am. Dec. 415; Wade v. Pettibone, 11 Ohio 57, 37 Am. Dec. 408; Briggs v. Hodgdon, 78 Me. 514, 7 A. 387; Turley v. Turley, 85 Tenn. 251, 1 S.W. 891; Emil Kiewert Co. v. Juneau, 24 C. C. A. 294, 47 U.S. App. 394, 78 F. 708; Garinger v. Palmer, 61 C. C. A. 436, 126 F. 906; 11 Cyc. 647.
Actual fraud on the part of the attorney need not be shown. From the relation of attorney and client, it is presumed. Weeks, Attorneys at Law, 2d ed. § 258; Yerkes v. Crum, 2 N.D. 72, 49 N.W. 422; Perry, Tr. & Trustees, 6th ed. § 202; Gilbert v. Hewetson, 79 Minn. 326, 79 Am. St. Rep. 486, 82 N.W. 655; St. Paul Trust Co. v. Strong, 85 Minn. 1, 88 N.W. 256; Henry v. Raiman, 25 Pa. 354, 64 Am. Dec. 703; Baker v. Humphrey, 101 U.S. 494, 25 L.Ed. 1065; Downard v. Hadley, 116 Ind. 131, 18 N.E. 457.
When attacked, the burden rests with the attorney to show good faith. Weeks, Attorneys at Law, 2d ed. § 258; Cunningham v. Jones, 37 Kan. 477, 1 Am. St. Rep. 257, 15 P. 572; Shropshire v. Ryan, 111 Iowa 677, 82 N.W. 1035; Home Invest. Co. v. Strange, Tex. Civ. App. , 152 S.W. 510; Standwood v. Wishard, 128 F. 499; Trice v. Comstock, 61 L.R.A. 176, 57 C. C. A. 646, 121 F. 620.
The state's attorney, having represented to a purchaser of lands from his county that the title was good, cannot, in a suit involving such lands, falsify such representations; and he is estopped to acquire any title adverse to the title granted by his county to such purchaser. Rev. Codes, 1905, § 7316; Herman, Estoppel, §§ 730, 911; 16 Cyc. 680, 683; Dickerson v. Colgrove, 100 U.S. 578, 25 L.Ed. 618; Sedgw. & W. Trial of Title to Land; Doster v. Scully, 27 F. 782; Gibbons v. Hoag, 95 Ill. 45; Bacon v. Bronson, 7 Johns. Ch. 194, 11 Am. Dec. 449; 11 Cyc. 699; Bigelow, Estoppel, 5th ed. 570.
Defendant was forbidden by statute and by common law to obtain quitclaim deeds to the property in question, or to attempt to enforce the same. N.D. Rev. Codes 1905; Penal Codes 1877, §§ 195, 200, Rev. Codes 1899, §§ 7008, 7013; 4 Kent, Com. 12th ed. 446; Gammons v. Johnson, 76 Minn. 76, 78 N.W. 1035; Steere v. Steere, 5 Johns. Ch. 1, 9 Am. Dec. 256; Browning v. Marvin, 100 N.Y. 148, 2 N.E. 635; Wetmore v. Hegeman, 88 N.Y. 73; Baldwin v. Latson, 2 Barb. Ch. 306; Winterberg v. Van de Vorste, 19 N.D. 417, 122 N.W. 866; Higbee v. Daeley, 15 N.D. 339, 109 N.W. 318.
The deeds to the attorney, having been obtained from persons who had abandoned the land, and had failed for years to pay the taxes, conveyed no title or interest. Cotton v. Horton, 22 N.D. 1, 132 N.W. 225; Higbee v. Daeley, 15 N.D. 339, 109 N.W. 318; Bausman v. Faue, 45 Minn. 418, 48 N.W. 13; Johnson v. Erlandson, 14 N.D. 518, 105 N.W. 722; Shelby v. Bowden, 16 S.D. 531, 94 N.W. 416; Farr v. Semmler, 24 S.D. 290, 123 N.W. 835; Ford v. Ford, 24 S.D. 644, 124 N.W. 1108; 16 Cyc. 718, 11 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 394; Dimond v. Manheim, 61 Minn. 178, 63 N.W. 495; Pom. Eq. Jur. 802.
The deeds so obtained were champertous and void. Schneller v. Plankinton, 12 N.D. 561, 98 N.W. 77; Galbraith v. Payne, 12 N.D. 164, 96 N.W. 258; Burke v. Scharf, 19 N.D. 227, 124 N.W. 79.
Under such circumstances a court of equity will not aid the attorney in carrying out his scheme. Cotton v. Horton, 22 N.D. 1, 132 N.W. 225; Mahon v. Leech, 11 N.D. 181, 90 N.W. 807; Holgate v. Eaton, 116 U.S. 33, 29 L.Ed. 538, 6 S.Ct. 224; O'Fallon v. Kennerly, 45 Mo. 124; Spoonheim v. Spoonheim, 14 N.D. 380, 104 N.W. 845; Wadge v. Kittleson, 12 N.D. 452, 97 N.W. 856.
The attorney, having obtained the deeds by representing to the grantors that they were for the benefit of the record owners, became an involuntary trustee for this plaintiff, the record owner, of such title as he received. Rev. Codes 1905, § 5711; Perry, Tr. & Trustees, 181; Prondzinski v. Garbutt, 8 N.D. 191, 77 N.W. 1012; Gates v. Kelley, 15 N.D. 639, 110 N.W. 770; Yerkes v. Crum, 2 N.D. 77, 49 N.W. 422; Henry v. Raiman, 25 Pa. 354, 64 Am. Dec. 703; Baker v. Humphrey, 101 U.S. 494, 25 L.Ed. 1065; Downard v. Hadley, 116 Ind. 131, 18 N.E. 457; Sutherland v. Reeve, 41 Ill.App. 295; Ainsworth v. Harding, 22 Idaho 645, 128 P. 92; Winterberg v. Van de Vorste, 19 N.D. 417, 122 N.W. 866; Boschker v. Van Beek, 19 N.D. 104, 122 N.W. 338; Johnson v. Knappe, 24 S.D. 407, 123 N.W. 857; Rollins v. Mitchell, 52 Minn. 41, 38 Am. St. Rep. 519, 53 N.W. 1020.
Appellants have title to these lands through decrees regularly entered against the former owners, and the deeds to the attorney conveyed no title. Rev. Codes 1899, § 5249; Star v. Mahan, 4 Dak. 213, 30 N.W. 169; Foster v. Wood, 30 How. Pr. 284; W. W. Kimball Co. v. Brown, 73 Minn. 167, 75 N.W. 1043; 1 Black, Judgm. 2d ed. p. 334; Scarborough v. Myrick, 47 Neb. 794, 66 N.W. 867; Wilkins v. Wilkins, 26 Neb. 235, 41 N.W. 1101; Hume v. Conduitt, 76 Ind. 598; Isaacs v. Price, 2 Dill. 347, F. Cas. No. 7,097; Salter v. Hilgen, 40 Wis. 363; Van Wyck v. Hardy, 20 How. Pr. 222; Briggs v. Hodgdon, 78 Me. 514, 7 A. 387; Pike v. Galvin, 29 Me. 183; Crocker v. Pierce, 31 Me. 177; Crayton v. Spullock, 87 Ga. 326, 13 S.E. 561; Gooch v. Peebles, 105 N.C. 411, 11 S.E. 415; Weeks, Attorneys at Law, §§ 271 et seq.; Zeigler v. Hughes, 55 Ill. 288.
The judgments entered in favor of this attorney, conveying the lands here involved, are void and unenforceable because of the deceit and fraud practised by the attorney, and are no bar to this action. Rev. Codes 1905, P 2, §§ 500 5293, 5294; 1 Herman, Estoppel, §§ 226, 250, 391; 3 Dan. Ch. Pl. & Pr. Perkins's ed. 1843; 2 Pom. Eq. Jur. § 919; 1 High, Inj. 2d ed. §§ 112, 281; 1 Foster, F. Pr. 2d ed. §§ 358, 678; Wright v. Miller, 1 Sandf. Ch. 103; Barnesly v. Powel, 1 Ves. Sr. 120, 289; Livingston v. Hubbs, 2 Johns. Ch. 124; Loomer v. Wheelwright, 3 Sandf. Ch. 135; Glover v. Hedges, 1 N.J.Eq. 113; Standen v. Edwards, 1 Ves. Jr. 133, 1 Madd. Ch. 236; Vanmeter v. Jones, 3 N.J.Eq. 523; Gifford v. Thorn, 9 N.J.Eq. 703; Whittemore v. Coster, 4 N.J.Eq. 438, 41 Am. Dec. 740; Boulton v. Scott, 3 N.J.Eq. 231; 2 Bl. Com. 346; 2 Hargrave's Juridical Arguments, 392; McKenzie v. Stewart, Dom. Proc. 1754; Cruise Dig. title 33; Private Act, 50, 51; Mussel v. Morgan, 3 Bro. Ch. 74; Richmond v. Tayleur, 1 P. Wms. 734; Lloyd v. Mansell, 2 P. Wms. 74; Whitchurch v. Whitchurch, 2 P. Wms. 236; Vanmeter v. Jones, 3 N.J.Eq. 520; Doughty v. Doughty, 27 N.J.Eq. 315; Cairo & F. R. Co. v. Titus, 28 N.J.Eq. 269; Jewett v. Dringer, 31 N.J.Eq. 586; ...
To continue reading
Request your trial