Sale v. Crutchfield

• Decision Date: 26 March 1871
• Parties: Sale and others v. Crutchfield, & c.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

71 Ky. 636

Sale and others v. Crutchfield, & c.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

March 26, 1871

APPEALS FROM THE LOUISVILLE CHANCERY COURT.

JAMES HARRISON, For Appellants,

CITED

Revised Statutes, " Landlord and Tenant," 2 Stanton, 91.

Taylor on Landlord and Tenant, section 64.

Civil Code, sections 111, 342, 776.

Littell's Select Cases, 8, Chesney v. Boyd.

Kent's Commentaries, 39, Lecture, page 483.

3 Johnson's Chancery, 304.

2 Metcalfe, 288, Woolfolk v. Ashley.

3 Bibb 3, Gist v. Robenit.

1 Bibb 240, McKegney v. McConnell.

3 Bibb 9, Brashear v. Burton.

3 Littell 14, Sharp v. Wickliffe.

6 B Monroe, 370, Ring v. Gray.

8 B. Monroe, 167, Merriwether v. Herron.

3 J. J. Marshall, 626, Turpin v. Markberry.

6 B. Monroe, 287, Scott v. Hall.

8 B. Monroe, 632, Gatliffe v. Rose.

9 B. Monroe, 351, Stemmons v. Duncan.

7 Cranch, 290, Mima Queen v. Hepburn.

1 Wheaton, 7, Davis v. Wood.

2 Parsons on Contracts, 4th edition, page 340.

2 Smith's Leading Cases, 5th American edition, 625, 637, 642.

1 Story's Equity Jurisprudence, 55, 384-388.

7 J. J. Marshall, 322. 1 J. J. Marshall, 404.

1 Metcalfe, 593. 3 Dana, 309.

6 Dana, 378. 1 Dana, 170.

9 Cowen, 274. 3 Marshall, 181.

9 Hill, 219. 2 Marshall, 217.

4 Metcalfe, 384. 1 Monroe, 163.

6 Ad. & Ellis, 469. 4 Littell, 366.

9 B. Monroe, 559. 4 Dana, 6.

7 Monroe, 230. 5 Dana, 167.

5 J. J. Marshall, 569. 2 Dana, 376.

8 B. Monroe, 542. 1 Marshall, 246.

1 Duvall, 115.

6 B. Monroe, 113. 4 Littell, 371.

3 Dana, 15. 1 J. J. Marshall, 516.

3 Littell, 350. 2 J. J. Marshall, 519.

2 Metcalfe, 289. 3 Monroe, 50.

9 B. Monroe, 559 3 Dana, 575.

3 Marshall, 202. 8 B. Monroe, 583.

15 B. Monroe, 73. 15 Massachusetts, 307.

17 Vesey, 533. 15 B. Monroe, 515.

14 B. Monroe, 569. 12 B. Monroe, 255.

16 Mam. 146. 10 B. Monroe, 205.

19 Ad. & Ellis, 9. 14 B. Monroe, 311.

21 Mam. 130, 137. 16 B. Monroe, 421.

18 B. Monroe, 371, Jones v. Letcher.

63 Pennsylvania, McCausland v. Fleming.

10 Metcalf (New York) 53. 1 Monroe, 163.

I. & J. CALDWELL, PIRTLE & CARUTH, For Appellees,

CITED

Story's Equity Jurisprudence, chapter 18.

Spence on Equitable Jurisdiction, 653.

Hardin, 281, Craig v. Baker's heirs.

3 Metcalfe, 588, Nunnally v. White.

5 Littell, 312, May's heirs v. Hill.

5 B. Monroe, 468, Oldham v. Jones.

2 B. Monroe, 318, Haggin v. Haggin.

1 Story's Equity Juris., pp. 432, 485, secs. 508, 509.

6 Dana, 375, Overton's heirs v. Woolfolk, & c.

4 Dana, 311, Underwood v. Brockman.

1 Littell, 85, Webb v. Conn.

6 Monroe, 603, Williamson v. Richardson.

4 Dana, 547. 2 B. Monroe, 119.

1 Marshall, 247, Scroggs v. Taylor.

1 Marshall, 246, Barton v. Bell.

14 B. Monroe, 176, Phillips v. Johnson.

OPINION

PETERS JUDGE.

In March, 1823, Mark Lampton, a citizen of Louisville, published his last will and testament, and shortly thereafter died leaving three children--a daughter, Minerva, who was at the date of his will the wife of Ephraim S. Stone, Fanny M. Lampton, and a son, Edmund S. Lampton, all of whom were devisees, and the will was properly probated. The clause in which the testator provided for his son is in the following language:

" I give and devise to my son, Edmund S. Lampton, and his heirs and assigns forever, five negroes (naming them), also eight acres of land, lying and being in Louisville aforesaid, on the western side of my ground, in the range of twenty-acre lots, to be bounded on the west side by Campbell Street aforesaid, which runs through the twenty-acre lot number two, and to extend from said street eastwardly equal distances along said south street, and the southern boundary of said ground to include the said eight acres of land, with all the appurtenances...... And if the said Edmund shall die without lawful issue, it is my will and desire, and I do hereby direct, that the estate herein devised to him shall go to his sisters in equal portions, and if either or both of them be then dead, to the child or children of such dead sister, the children taking the share of the dead parent."

After the death of the testator his daughter, Fanny M., married Thomas F. Crutchfield. And afterward E. S. Stone, the husband of Minerva, died, leaving her and her son, E. M. Stone, surviving; the widow then married B. H. Minter, by whom she had a son, F. Marion Minter. Some years thereafter Mrs. Minter died, leaving her sons, E. M. Stone and F. Marion Minter, her only heirs. After having married, F. M. Minter died, leaving two infant children, Mary Sallie Minter and Edward Law Minter, his only heirs. After the death of his sister, Minerva, and her son, F. M. Minter, Edmund S. Lampton died, as is alleged, in 1865, " without issue."

In December, 1866, this suit in equity was brought by Crutchfield and wife against E. M. Stone and the infant children of F. M. Minter, heirs of the testator's daughter, Minerva, and quite a number of other persons, to whom it is alleged the said Edmund S. Lampton had sold, either directly or mediately, said eight acres of land devised to him by his father, having divided said land into small lots of about thirty-five feet front, and running back from one hundred and fifty to two hundred feet to streets and alleys which he had laid out, alleging that all those possessed of lots within the boundary of said eight acres claim and hold them under conveyances from said Edmund S. Lampton, and that by the terms of his father's will, through which he derived title, he could only pass to his grantees an estate during his life thereto, and that since his death the persons in possession have unlawfully withheld them from the plaintiff, Fanny Crutchfield, and defendants, Stone and Minters; and they pray for a partition thereof, that one half of said eight acres be allotted and set apart in proper form by metes and bounds, or that an equal half of the lots be designated and set apart to the plaintiff, Fanny, and the other moiety to whom the same may belong. They pray that the persons in possession be compelled to surrender the same to them, for an account of rents and profits, and for general relief.

Stone answered, and made his answer a cross-petition against the defendants, the Minters, and unites with the plaintiffs in the prayer for relief against the persons in possession, claiming a moiety of the lots sued for, except such as he admits he joined E. S. Lampton in the conveyance of, which he designates by their respective numbers; the plaintiffs also admit they joined E. S. Lampton in the conveyance of some lots described in their petition by their numbers, and disclaim any right to them.

It should be observed that Stone, by his cross-pleading, claimed one moiety of the property sued for, to the exclusion of the Minters; this claim they controverted by their answer, and on the trial of that branch of the case in the court below a judgment was rendered favorable to them; but, on an appeal to this court by Stone, that judgment was reversed, and since then the Minters have taken no part in the litigation.

In the answer of the defendants they controvert the death of Edmund S. Lampton, and say if he be dead they deny that he died without issue; admit severally that they are in possession of the respective lots or parcels for which they are sued, and claim to hold the same rightfully. They aver that they are purchasers in good faith, having paid an adequate price, and believed that they were getting a good and indefeasible title; some of whom purchased directly from said Lampton, and some from his vendees, immediate or remote; and they allege that all who purchased directly from him took counsel of persons learned in the law, and were assured by them that the title was good; and hence, confiding in the opinion of their legal advisers, they made the purchases. They allege that they, and those under whom they claim, have had a continuous possession adverse to appellees for more than fifteen years before the commencement of this suit, and plead and rely upon time as a bar to the action. They insist that a joint suit can not be maintained against them, claiming as they do severally different lots, separated by distinct metes and bounds, and plead to the jurisdiction of the Louisville Chancery Court. And finally they allege that they purchased their respective parcels for valuable considerations, without notice of any defect in the title; that they entered in good faith, and made valuable and lasting improvements on said lots, for which they pray to be remunerated if it should be adjudged by the court that their titles are defective, and for that purpose made their answers cross-petitions.

The case was referred to the master to take an account of rents and profits, and of the value of lasting improvements made by the tenants, and report the result of his investigations to court, who made two or more reports, to which there were exceptions by defendants. Finally judgment was rendered in favor of Mrs. Crutchfield and Stone against the defendants severally for the lots in their possession, except such as they admit they joined Lampton in the conveyance of, subject in many instances to the payment of the value of improvements adjudged in their favor. From that judgment twelve separate appeals are prosecuted on the same record, of which that of Sale v. Crutchfield and wife, & c., stands first.

A demurrer was filed to the petition, which was overruled, and it is insisted here by the learned counsel for appellants that the court erred in that ruling, because the petition...