United States v. Conklin

Decision Date07 February 1910
Docket Number1,751.
Citation177 F. 55
PartiesUNITED STATES v. CONKLIN et al. [1]
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

Robert T. Devlin, U.S. Atty., and George Clark, Asst. U.S. Atty.

N. E Conklin and A. E. Bolton, for appellees.

Before GILBERT and MORROW, Circuit Judges, and HUNT, District Judge.

HUNT District Judge.

The United States brought this suit to annul and set aside a patent issued by the United States to Mollie Conklin and Emily M. Reddy, as executrix, and Edward A. Reddy, as executor of the last will and testament of Patrick Reddy deceased, for the N.E. 1/4 of the N.E. 1/4 of section 8 township 39 North, and the W. 1/2 of the N.E. 1/4 and the N.E. 1/4 of the S.E. 1/4 of section 18, township 40 North, of range 8 East, of the Mt. Diablo Meridian in California, containing 200 acres of land, upon the ground that the same had been obtained by fraud. Certain of the defendants demurred. The court sustained the demurrer, and decreed a dismissal of the bill. Complainant appeals.

The case as made by the complainant in its bill is substantially as follows: In August, 1900, Mollie Conklin was the owner of an undivided one-half interest, and Emily M. Reddy and Edward A. Reddy, as devisees under the last will and testament of Patrick Reddy, deceased, each owned, subject to administration of the estate of said deceased, an undivided quarter interest in some 9,000 acres of land, known as the 'Monache Lands,' situated in Tulare and Inyo counties, and within the Sierra Forest Reserve, in the state of California. An oral agreement for the sale of said lands to one John A. Benson was made at that time at the office of Messrs. Campbell, Metson & Campbell, attorneys, at San Francisco, Cal., between Benson and Mollie Conklin and Emily M. Reddy, the latter agreeing to sell to said Benson, and said Benson agreeing to purchase, within 90 days, the said lands at a price of $3.80 per acre. It was agreed that the lands might be purchased in parcels, and separate deeds for different parcels should be executed, and the law firm of Campbell, Metson & Campbell were to act for both Mollie Conklin and Emily M. Reddy in the preparation of said deeds, and in attending to their execution and delivery in accordance with the agreement as made between the parties. Deeds were to be executed by the owners to Benson, to be placed and held in escrow, and delivered to Benson upon the payment of the purchase price at the rate of $3.80 per acre, but no deeds were to be delivered until such payments were made. Mollie Conklin and Emily M. Reddy were both far advanced in years, and their mental faculties had become greatly impaired by reason of old age. They relied upon the members of the law firm of Campbell, Metson & Campbell, in whom they had reposed great confidence and trust, to see to it that the agreement of sale was carried out according to its terms and provisions. It is then alleged that subsequent to the making of said agreement Benson forwarded to Mollie Conklin and Emily M. Reddy, by an unknown person, but who was acting under the directions of said Benson, a large number of instruments for execution. He represented to said Mollie Conklin and Emily M. Reddy that he brought the instruments from the office of Campbell, Metson & Campbell, and that they were the deeds which were to be executed by them in pursuance of the agreement made in the month of August, 1900; that they had been prepared by said firm of attorneys; that said Mollie Conklin and Emily M. Reddy should sign them and return them by bearer to said attorneys, whom he claimed to represent in the matter as their agent. It is alleged, generally, that these representations were false, and known, by the person making them and by said Benson, to be false, and were made for the purpose of taking advantage of said Mollie Conklin and Emily M. Reddy and of the trust and confidence reposed by them in their attorneys, and in order to cause to be violated the terms of their said agreement, and to procure from them their said lands, other than in accordance with their said agreement, and contrary to their will, wish and consent; that Mollie Conklin and Emily M. Reddy signed the instruments, without reading or examining the papers before doing so, relying upon said representations and believing them to be true, and believing that they were acting upon the advice of their attorneys, and that they were carrying out their agreement with Benson, and that they would not have signed them if said false representations had not been made.

The instruments were in part deeds, purporting to convey and relinquish to the United States the 'Monache Lands,' in part lieu selections in blank, containing no description of the lands therein selected or of the land relinquished, and in part powers of attorney in blank, undated, and without the name of any attorney mentioned therein. One of said deeds was for a tract of 200 acres of the 'Monache Lands,' and one of said lieu selections was made use of as the means of procuring an equal amount of land, for which the patent, herein sought to be annulled, was afterwards issued, in exchange for the tract conveyed to the United States. After the execution of these instruments by Mollie Conklin and Emily M. Reddy in the manner stated, they were delivered and surrendered, by the person who had brought them, to Benson, and placed under his control, contrary to the will, wish, consent, or agreement of said Mollie Conklin and Emily M. Reddy, and without paying to them 'any sum on account of his said receipt and control thereof. ' It is further alleged that Benson caused the deed to be delivered to the United States in pursuance of the laws, rules, and regulations of the Department of the Interior permitting the surrender of lands within forest reserves to the United States, and the selection of other lands in lieu thereof, together with an abstract of title; that the deed was never acknowledged by the grantors, but that the certificate of acknowledgment appearing thereon was falsely made and forged. A lieu selection of land of an equal amount as that described in the deed was thereupon filed and approved, and patent therefor issued on July 22, 1902, to said Mollie Conklin and Emily M. Reddy, as executrix, and Edward A. Reddy, as executor of the last will and testament of Patrick Reddy, deceased, and the patent delivered to said Benson and the defendant C. L. Hovey, all of which, it is alleged was done without the knowledge or consent of, and without any authority from, the said Mollie Conklin and Emily M. Reddy.

Prior to the approval of said lieu selection, C. L. Hovey, pretending to act under a power of attorney to him from Mollie Conklin and Emily M. Reddy, conveyed the lands described in the patent to the defendant Thomas B. Walker. It is alleged that the said Hovey had no authority to do so, and that the filling in of the blanks in the power of attorney under which the conveyance was made, was wholly unauthorized, and said Mollie Conklin and Emily M. Reddy never knowingly or intentionally executed said power of attorney, except under the supposition and belief that the same was a deed prepared by their attorneys in accordance with the agreement made in August, 1900; that Emily M. and Edward A. Reddy had no authority to convey any of the estate of Patrick Reddy, deceased, except by authority of the superior court of the state of California, which had never been obtained; that the name of Edward A. Reddy appears signed to all of said instruments, but complainant is not advised or informed as to the circumstances under which said Edward A. Reddy signed the same.

It is alleged that the administration of the estate of Patrick Reddy had not been brought to a close, and that the expenses of administration have not been paid; that claims aggregating a large amount have been allowed and approved against said estate, which have not been paid, and that the lands conveyed to the United States are subject to the payment of such expenses, claims and debts against said estate; that the officers of the complainant, in approving said lieu selection and issuing said patent, acted inadvertently and through a mistake in assuming that the said deed from Mollie Conklin and Emily M. and Edward A. Reddy conveyed a complete title. It is alleged that Benson paid to Mollie Conklin certain sums of money aggregating between $2,000 and $3,000, which were accepted by her under the mistake and belief that the same were paid in pursuance and in execution of the agreement of August, 1900; that prior to the commencement of this suit, and upon discovery of the facts stated, she offered to return the moneys received by her to said Benson, upon a return to her of her interest in the lands by her surrendered to the United States, and is desirous and will, on return to her of said lands, return said money to Benson, or his assigns, or the person entitled thereto; that the United States desires that any title it may have to said lands may be, by decree, transferred and conveyed to said Mollie Conklin and Emily M. Reddy. Decree is prayed for the annulment of said patent, the canceling of the deed from Mollie Conklin and Emily M. Reddy to the United States, of the lieu selection, and the power of attorney from Mollie Conklin, Emily M., and Edward A. Reddy to C. L. Hovey, and for the cancellation of the deed executed to Thomas B. Walker by Hovey as the attorney in fact of Mollie Conklin and Emily M. and Edward A. Reddy.

The 'Monache Lands,' of which the tract conveyed to the United States was a part, were situated in the Sierra Forest Reserve, and the relinquishment of the 200 acres to the government, and the selection in lieu thereof of the lands described in the patent, were made pursuant to the act of Congress...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • United States v. Payette Lumber & Mfg. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • 26 Julio 1912
    ...appeal to the Circuit Court of Appeals, the judgment of the lower court was affirmed. United States v. Conklin (C.C.) 169 F. 177; Id., 177 F. 55, 100 C.C.A. 473. The facts disclosed by the evidence are, to say the least, no more favorable to the government than were the averments there held......
  • Martinez v. U.S. Bank, N.A., No. E048474 (Cal. App. 5/27/2010)
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 27 Mayo 2010
    ...essential to the validity of any of the papers actually signed by plaintiff." (Id. at pp. 792-793; see also U.S. v. Conklin (9th Cir. 1910) 177 F. 55, 63 [related case arising out of the same facts, holding that deed with genuine signature was not a forgery, even if acknowledgment was forge......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT