St. Lawrence Co. v. Holt
| Decision Date | 05 April 1902 |
| Citation | 51 W.Va. 352 |
| Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
| Parties | St. Lawrence Co. v. Holt and Mathews. |
E quit able J uris dict ion A dju dieation.
An adjudication that a particular case is of equitable jurisdiction is not void, even if erroneous and cannot be disturbed by a collateral attack, (p. 360).
Final Decree Estoppel Ejectment.
R. conveyed to K. certain real estate in consideration of twelve thousand dollars, of which three thousand dollars was paid in cash and the residue secured by deed of trust. K. then conveyed the land to the St. L. B. & M. Co. and, later, R. caused the trustee to advertise the land for sale, under the deed of trust. Thereupon, K. and the St. L. B. & M. Co. enjoined the sale, alleging in their bill that H. & M. claimed to own 1, 632 acres of the land in fee under an older grant than the one under which plaintiffs claimed and had included the same in a survey made by them, that this claim constituted a serious cloud on the title, and that plaintiffs did not know whether said surveys were accurate or said title of H. & M. valid, and praying that the sale be stayed until the title should be settled and quieted and that II. & M. and R. be required to deduce their respective titles. Although made parties and served with process, H. & M. made no appearance nor defense to the bill. The circuit court caused the St. L. B. & M. Co. to bring an action of ejectment and enjoined the sale pending the trial of the ejectment suit. R. appealed from this action and the appellate court dissolved the injunction and unqualifiedly dismissed the bill and decreed costs against the complainants. Held: That the decree is an absolute and final adjudication that H. & M. had no valid title to the land and estops them to set up, in the action of ejectment, the said older grant under which they claim, and that the court properly allowed the St. L. B. & M. Co. to introduce, on the trial of said action, the record, and decision of the appellate court, in said chancery cause, as evidence, and instructed the jury that the legal title to the land was in said trustee, (p. 372).
Error to Circuit Court, Pocahontas County.
Action of ejectment by the St. Lawrence Boom and Manufacturing Company against Homer A. Holt and another. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendants bring error.
Affirmed.
Mollohan, McClintio & Mathews, for plaintiffs in error.
Brown, Jackson & Knight and Campbell, Holt & Campbell, for defendant in error.
poeeenbarger, judge:
On the 20th day of August, 1881, W. L. Rawson conveyed to Porter Kinports, by deed with covenant of general warranty, a tract of one thousand six hundred and thirty-two acres of land and another of eight hundred acres and a lease of seven hundred and eighty acres with the right to remove the timber from the last one, in consideration of the sum of twelve thousand dollars, of which three thousand dollars was paid in cash and, for the residue, Kinports executed his three bonds of three thousand dollars each, payable in one, two and three years, respectively, to secure the payment of which Kinports conveyed the land to A. C. Snyder, trustee, on the 3rd day of October, 1881. Later, Kinports conveyed the property to the St. Lawrence Boom and Manufacturing Company. Some years afterwards, the trustee advertised all the land for sale. Thereupon Kinports and the St. Lawrence Company filed their bill against Rawson, A. C. Snyder, trustee, Homer A. Holt and A. E. Mathews, and upon the bill an injunction was granted, restraining the trustee from making sale of the one thousand six hundred and thirty-two acre tract.
The principal grounds set forth in the bill for enjoining the sale were, in substance, as follows: That
Other important allegations were that the one thousand six hundred and thirty-two acre tract constituted the most valuable portion of the property; that more than seven thousand, dollars had been paid; that the plaintiffs had no protection, against the loss which they would sustain if compelled to pay the debt and lose the land by paramount title; that Rawson was not in the actual possession of the land at the time of the sale; that neither of the plaintiffs had been put or were them in the actual possession thereof; that they claimed and upon information alleged, that at the time of the purchase by Rawson and conveyance to him, his vendor and those, under whom he claimed, had held under color of title and under a grant from the commonwealth of Virginia for more than fifteen years preceding said purchase actual continuous adversary possession of said land; that Pawson and the plaintiffs, respectively, were invested by the conveyance to them, respectively, with all the title to said land, which had been acquired or was held by the grantors of Rawson; that Holt and Mathews claim to have recently caused a survey to be made of the exterior boundaries of their said grant and had included therein the said one thousand six hundred and thirtytwo acres as well as the land claimed in said suit against said White, and have exhibited to the attorney of the plaintiff, what they claimed to be a plat of said survey, showing the above stated facts; that if their paper-title was sufficient to cover the land of said White, it would be sufficient to cover said one thousand six hundred and thirty-two acres; that whether said surveys were accurate, or said title of Holt and Mathews was valid, the plaintiffs did not know; that the conflicting claims were matters of wide notoriety in said counties of Pocahontas and Greenbrier, where said lands were advertised to be sold, and among those persons, who, under other circumstances, would be likely to be bidders therefor; that a sale under such circumstances would necessarily lead to a sacrifice of said one thousand six hundred and thirty-two acres and the other land mentioned in the trust deed; and that the lands were purchased for the timber, and they expected to get them all, and would lose greatly, if any part of the land were lost to them.
The prayer of the bill was, that the sale be enjoined, and that Snyder, trustee, and Raw son should be enjoined from enforcing the payment of said purchase-money, until the cloud on the title to said one thousand six hundred and thirty-two acres should be removed, that Holt and Mathews be required to produce their title to said land, and that the title thereto might be determined and quieted. The injunction was granted on the 3rd day of July, 1885.
Rawson answered the bill, exhibiting a grant from the commonwealth of Virginia, dated the 3rd day of June, 1856, to May and Cleek for the one thousand six hundred and thirty-two acres, a conveyance from May of his undivided two-thirds of the land executed on the 10th day of June, 1881, and a conveyance from the executor of Cleek for the remaining undivided onethird, dated September 12, 1881. He denied that he was not in possession of the land when he sold to Kinports, and averred that he had. the actual and uninterrupted possession of ail the land, and especially of the one thousand six hundred and thirty-two acres at the time he sold, and conveyed it, and that he and those under whom he claimed had had such possession under a good and sufficient title for over twenty years, as he was informed and believed; that there were houses, enclosures and improvements extending into it on tracts adjoining the one thousand six hundred and thirty-two acres belonging to Elijah May, one of the respondent's grantors, which houses were occupied by May's tenants, which facts were fully known to Kinports' agents; that the possession of May was open and notorious; that Kinports was placed in the actual possession thereof; and that if he had not remained so the fault was not respondent's. He denied that Holt and Mathews had any subsisting title to any part of the land; that plaintiffs had ever been approached by Holt and Mathews, their agents or attorneys, with threats of suits or assertions of any claims whatever; that there was no suit pending or proceedings against him or the plaintiffs, in which the title was in any manner called in question by Holt and Mathews or any one else; that any notice to quit or any process had been served on plaintiffs; and that he ever heard of any question in regard to the title, except through the St. Lawrence Boom and Manufacturing Company, its agents or attorneys. Additional matters denied and averred in the answer as well as the evidence in the case will be found in Kinports v. Rawson, 29 W. Va. 487.
A special judge was selected to try the cause, and, on the " 13th day of June, 1886, it was heard in vacation on the bill, answer of Rawson, general replication thereto, exhibits filed, depositions, and the motion of defendant, Rawson, to dissolve the injunction, and the order made and...
To continue reading
Request your trial