Slaughter v. Glenn
Decision Date | 01 October 1878 |
Citation | 25 L.Ed. 122,98 U.S. 242 |
Parties | SLAUGHTER v. GLENN |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Western District of Texas.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Mr. W. S. Herndon for the appellants.
Mr. Isaac C. Collins, contra.
There is a considerable mass of testimony in the record, but the facts are few, and we think there is nothing material about which there is any room for doubt.
In the year 1863, and for some years previous, the appellant, Mrs. Slaughter, had owned in her own right the premises in controversy in this case. She was a widow when she married Slaughter, and then possessed the property. It is situated in Marion County, in the State of Taxas. The land was poor and the place very unhealthy. In the spring of that year, Dunn & Co. were desirous to put up a packing establishment, and were looking for property to buy with that view. Her agent offered the premises in question. At his request Dunn called upon her. She asked $8,400. Dunn & Co. agreed to give it, and paid her in Confederate money. On the 21st of July, 1863, the payment was completed, and she executed a deed to the purchasers. She was the sole grantor, and the certificate of acknowledgment was silent as to any separate and privy examination. The certificate is as if she were a feme sole. Gray, the officer who took the acknowledgment, testified as follows:——
About the time the transaction was closed she bought another tract of land situate in the neighborhood, and paid for it out of the money she had received from Dunn & Co. A deed to her was duly executed on the 3d of August following. The tract is fully described in the bill, and a copy of the deed is in evidence. The property was known as the Culbertson farm. Before selling and buying, she consulted with her friends, and they earnestly advised both a highly advantageous.
The firm of Dunn & Co. consisted by Dunn and Price. Price sold and conveyed to Dunn his share of the premises in controversy, and Dunn sold and conveyed the entire premises to Joseph Glenn, since deceased.
On the 26th of May, 1863, the appellant, M. T. Slaughter, left his home, and entered into the Confederate military service in the State of Louisiana. He lost an arm by a casualty of the war, and thereupon returned home and remained there. He was absent about a year. He had no means. His wife had considerable property. During his absence she managed and controlled every thing as if she had been a feme sole. His ever returning depended upon the chances of the war. Upon getting back, he expressed himself as highly gratified by the sale and purchase she had made. She had constantly done the same thing. On the 3d of June, 1868, Slaughter and wife conveyed an undivided half of the premises in controversy to one of their counsel in the court below, with a special covenant against all persons claiming under them. By the same instrument it was provided that the learned gentleman should prosecute a suit for the recovery of the premises without any other compensation, and that in the event of defeat he should pay all costs and damages and save his clients harmless. An action of trespass to try title was instituted in the proper State court, in the name of Slaughter and wife. Glen thereupon filed this bill to quiet his title. Upon his application, both cases were removed to the Circuit Court of the United States. That court decreed a perpetual injunction in the action at law, and the equity case has been brought here for review.
The controversy between the parties is to be decided according to the jurisprudence of Texas. We must administer the law of the case in all respects as if we were a court sitting there, and reviewing the decree of an inferior court in that locality. Olcott v. Bynum, 17 Wall. 44.
The case on the part of the appellants wears the appearance of a conspiracy to defraud, which, to say the least, does not commend it to the favorable consideration of a chancellor.
A court of equity must find itself hard pressed in the other direction to refuse the relief sought by the bill upon the facts disclosed in the record. We do not find ourselves embarrassed by any such considerations.
The only objections taken by the appellants to the title of the appellees' testator are that Slaughter was not a party to the deed of his wife to Dunn & Co., and that the certificate of her acknowledgment does not conform to the requirements of the statute of the State touching deeds by married women of their own property.
Before considering that subject, it is proper to advert to two other points which arise upon the record.
All the maans, legal and equitable, which Dunn had of protecting his title passed by assignment under his deed to Glenn. Kellogg v. Wood, 4 Paige (N. Y.), 578.
Mrs. Slaughter paid for the Culbertson farm entirely out of the proceeds of the property which she conveyed to Dunn & Co., and there was an overplus left in her hands. If we were constrained to hold that she is entitled to recover back those premises, it would then have to be considered whether she should not be regarded as a trustee ex maleficio, and required to convey to the appellees, as representing...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Martin v. Colburn
...58 Mo. 56-59; Welch v. Welch, 63 Mo. 57; Plass v. Thomas, 6 Mo. App. 157; 1 Bishop on Married Women, secs. 852-3; Ib. 863; Slaughter v. Glenn, 98 U. S. 242-6. HENRY, C. J. Plaintiffs sued defendant in ejectment for the possession of eighty acres of land in Cass county which the wife had con......
-
Highland Park Mfg. Co. v. Steele
... ... This court must hold and ... administer the law upon the subject as if it were sitting ... as a local court of that state. ' Slaughter v ... Glenn, 98 U.S. 242, 25 L.Ed. 122 ... As ... indicating the authoritative force given to the decision of a ... case under ... ...
-
Cartan, McCarthy & Co. v. David
...Wright v. Remington, 12 Vroom 48; Todd v. Lee, 15 Wis. 380; Krouskop v. Shontz, 51 Wis. 204; Pelzer v. Campbell, 15 S. C. 581; Slaughter v. Glenn, 98 U. S. 242; Smith v. Thompson, 2 McArthur (D. C.) 291; Dallas v. Heard, 32 Ga. 604; American Ins. Co. v. Avery, 60 Ind. 570; Frazier v. Brownl......
-
Christmas v. Hahn
... ... authority conferred by the wife not being questioned, his ... deed divested her of all title. Johnston v ... Jones, 12 B. Mon. 326; Slaughter ... v. Glenn, 98 U.S. 242; Duvall ... v. Graves, 7 Bush, 467. It is argued, ... however, that as the wife was ... [9 S.W. 281.] ... a resident ... ...