Thaw v. Falls
Citation | 34 L.Ed. 531,10 S.Ct. 1037,136 U.S. 519 |
Parties | THAW v. FALLS et al |
Decision Date | 23 May 1890 |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
This was an action of ejectment, brought December 12, 1882, by Columbus Thawagainst Maria Ritchie, to recover possession of an undivided half of lots 1 and 4, in square 160, in the city of Washington. At the trial on the general issue, before Chief Justice CARTTER, the plaintiff introduced evidence that his father, Joseph Thaw, died in 1840, seised and possessed of these lots under a title derived from the United States, and leaving a will, dated February 26, 1840, and duly admitted to probate in the same year, which, omitting the formal commencement and conclusion, was as follows:
The plaintiff also introduced evidence tending to show that his mother, Eliza V. Thaw, died in February, 1866; and, for the purpose of showing a severance of the joint tenancy, claimed to have existed between himself and his sister Columbia Thaw in these lots, put in evidence a deed, dated May 16, 1848, from his sister and one Henry Walker, of their interest in these lots to Agricol Favier; a deed, dated October 22, 1874, from a trustee appointed in a suit in equity for the partition of Favier's real estate after his death, purporting to convey the whole of these lots to one Ingersoll; a deed of the lots, dated May 24, 1878, from Ingersoll to Mary J. France; and the will of Mrs. France, admitted to probate in January, 1881, devising all her real estate to the defendant.
It was admitted that the real estate sought to be recovered was worth more than $12,000, and that the defendant was in possession thereof, claiming title adversely to the plaintiff. The defendant claimed title under a deed of the two lots to Favier from Eliza V. Thaw, dated March 17, 1848, purporting to be executed pursuant to an order of sale made, upon her petition, by the orphans' court for the county of Washington, in the District of Columbia, and approved by the circuit court of the United States of the District of Columbia, sitting as a court of chancery. In support of this defense, the defendant offered in evidence, and the court admitted, against the objection and exception of the plaintiff, the following maters:
(1) From the office of the supreme court of the District of Columbia, a book entitled 'Chancery Rules No. 4,' of its predecessor, the circuit court of the United States of the District of Columbia, containing this entry:
(2) From the same office, the only paper on file there in said case No. 344, certified by E. N. Roach, register of wills, under date of April 29, 1844, to be 'a true copy from an original filed and recorded in the office of the register of wills for Washington county aforesaid,' and consistingof a petition addressed to the judge of the orphans' court for that county, dated March 29, 1844, signed by Eliza V. Thaw, and having annexed to it a certificate of a justice of the peace to her oath that 'the facts contained in the within petition are true, to the best of her knowledge and belief, together with the order of the orphans' court thereon, which petition and order were as follows:
(3) Certified copies of two bonds, each executed by Eliza V. Thaw as principal, and Henry Walker and John Walker as sureties, to the United States. One of these bonds, dated March 22, 1844, was in the penal sum of $725, and upon the condition that if The other bond, dated May 17, 1845, was in the penal sum of $750, and upon this condition: 'Whereas, Eliza V. Thaw, by a decree of the orphans' court of Washington county aforesaid, and confirmed by an order of the circuit court of the District of Columbia for the county of Washington aforesaid, has been appointed trustee to sell the real estate of the late Joseph Thaw, mentioned in said order, for the support and maintenance of Columbia and Columbus Thaw, minors, as will more fully appear by the said decree, reference being thereto had: Now, the condition of the above obligation is such that if the above-bounden Eliza V. Thaw do and shall well and faithfully perform the trust reposed in her as trustee...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Fiehe v. R.E. Householder Co.
... ... 147, Ann. Cas. 1912A, 1072; Mohr v. Manierre, 101 ... U.S. 417, 25 L.Ed. 1052; Florentine v. Barton, 2 ... Wall. 210, 17 L.Ed. 783; Thaw v. Falls, 136 ... U.S. 519, 10 S.Ct. 1037, 34 L.Ed. 531; Price v ... Winter, 15 Fla. 66, 101; Ryan v. Fergusson, 3 ... Wash. 356, 28 P. 910; ... ...
- Clay v. Bilby
-
Bopst v. Williams
... ... appellants if the sale was otherwise good. [Exendine v ... Morris, 8 Mo.App. 389.] It would not, of itself, render the ... sale void. [ Thaw v. Ritchie, 136 U.S. 519, 34 L.Ed ... 531, 10 S.Ct. 1037; Fritzgibbon v. Lake, 29 Ill ... 178, 81 Am. Dec. 302 and note; Mulford v ... to touch and awaken the suggestion of self-interest. The ... case, therefore, falls clearly within the spirit of the ... principle, that if a trustee, acting for others, sells an ... estate, and becomes himself interested in the ... ...
-
Clark v. Rossier
... ... ( Beauregard v. New Orleans, 59 U.S. 497, 18 HOW 497, ... 15 L.Ed. 469; Davis v. Gaines, 104 U.S. 386, 26 ... L.Ed. 757; Thaw v. Ritchie, 136 U.S. 519, 10 S.Ct ... 1037, 34 L.Ed. 531.) ... It was ... held in Matheson's Heirs v. Hearin, 29 Ala. 210, ... that ... ...