Walker v. Beauchler
| Decision Date | 27 April 1876 |
| Citation | 68 Va. 511 |
| Parties | WALKER v. BEAUCHLER. |
| Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
B, a German by birth, was the owner of a tract of twenty-four acres of land on which he lived, in the county of Alexandria near Georgetown. In June 1859, to secure a debt of $300 which he owed to P of Georgetown, payable in two years, he conveyed the land to J, the son-in-law of P, in trust to secure the payment of the debt, and if the debt was not paid he was, on the request of P, to advertise the land in a paper published in A, and sell at public auction. In 1861 the union forces having taken possession of that part of the county, B removed with his family to Fairfax court-house, and remained there until the close of the war. In October 1864, J having advertised the sale of the land in a paper in A, sold it at public auction in Georgetown, when Mrs. B, the wife of B, and niece of P, bought it at a reduced price. W was present at this sale. Mrs. B and her husband afterwards sold it to W and S at the same price, and afterwards W bought out S, and made permanent improvements upon it. In 1870 B filed his bill against W, & c., to set aside the sale and conveyances. HELD:
1. B being within the confederate lines, and P being in the union lines during the war, B could not legally pay, or P receive his debt, and therefore the deed of trust could not be enforced, and the sale was invalid.
2. W having been present at the sale, and knowing the circumstances, can stand in no better condition than the purchaser at the sale, and his title therefore is invalid.
3. B is entitled to have his land, he paying to W the amount of the debt which he owed to P.
4. B's debt is not to bear interest during the war.
5. B having delayed for four years after the war had closed to assert his right to the property, and permitted W to put valuable and permanent improvements upon it, believing that he had an undisputed title to it, W is to be charged for the rents and profits of the land, exclusive of his improvements whilst he held it, and to be allowed a reasonable compensation for the permanent improvements he has made upon it, though this shall be in excess of the rents and profits.
In June 1854, John Beauchler, a German by birth, purchased of Luke Osborn a small tract of twenty-four acres of land, lying in the county of Alexandria, within some three or four miles of Georgetown, at the price of $850. Though the building upon the land was very small, Beauchler seems to have lived in it until 1861, when the late war having broken out, and the union forces having taken possession of that part of the county, he removed with his family to Fairfax court-house.
Whilst Beauchler was living on the land, viz: on the 6th of June 1859, he conveyed it to Frederick W. Jones of Georgetown, in trust to secure a debt of $300, which he owed to Joseph N. Fearson of Georgetown. This debt was evidenced by a promissory note, payable in two years from its date, which was the date of the deed, with interest payable semi-annually; and the deed provided, that upon any default of payment in the interest or principal of said note, Jones, upon the written request of Fearson, should proceed to sell the land, or so much of it as might be necessary, at public auction, upon such terms as he should deem most for the interest of both parties, first giving twenty days notice of the time, place and terms of sale, in some newspaper published in the city of Alexandria.
In October 1864, on the request of Fearson, Jones having advertised the sale in an Alexandria paper, proceeded to sell the land at public auction in the city of Georgetown, when it was purchased by Mrs. Julianna Barrett, the wife of Erastus B. Barrett, for the sum of $425, and Jones conveyed the land to her. In February 1865 Mrs. Barrett and her husband conveyed the land to Robert Walker and Franklin Scott at the same price; and in January 1869 Scott, in consideration of $400, conveyed his undivided moiety to Walker.
In October 1870 Beauchler filed his bill in the county court of Alexandria county against Walker, Jones, and the unknown personal representative of Fearson, to set aside the sale by Jones, and the deeds which had been executed by Jones and the subsequent holders. He set out the facts above stated; stated that he had gone in 1861 within the confederate lines; that when the notice of sale was given, and the sale made, he was living in the state of Virginia, and was, because of the existence of war and military regulations, unable to visit the place from which he had fled, or where the pretended sale occurred, and that he had no notice of the sale. He insisted that Jones was not authorized to sell the land in Georgetown, outside of the state of Virginia, and the sale was a nullity; that Jones was the son-in-law of Fearson, and that Mrs. Barrett was his niece, and had been reared by him as one of his own family, and that Walker at the time of his purchase of the land was aware of the plaintiff's right, and of the irregularities in the sale.
Walker answered the bill. He said he was present at the sale; that it was well attended, and brought a full price; that it was fair in every particular, so far as he knew or believed. That he is a bona fide purchaser for value without notice; and he relies upon the laches of the plaintiff in delaying so long to bring his suit, with the knowledge that he was making large improvements upon the property.
A number of witnesses were examined as to the value of the land, its condition when sold, and the improvements put upon it by Walker. The commissioner, who was directed to report upon the question, put the value at the time of the sale at $600; to which both parties excepted. Some of the witnesses thought it sold for a full price, and others for more than it was worth; and some thought that Walker's improvements cost more than land and improvements would sell for.
The cause came on to be heard on the 4th of December 1871, when the court set aside the sale of the land made by Jones in October 1864, and declared his and the subsequent deeds null, so far as respected the conveyance of any title to said land as against Beauchler; and a commissioner was directed to report the amount of the debt due from Beauchler to Fearson, omitting interest during the war, and an account of rents and profits, and the improvements made upon the land since October 1864, which was to be set off against the rents. From this decree Walker obtained an appeal to the circuit court of the county of Alexandria; but the decree was affirmed by that court by its decree of the 28th of May 1872. And Beauchler waiving all demand for rents beyond the value of the improvements, the court made a decree in favor of Walker, as substituted to the rights of Fearson against Beauchler, for the sum of $300, with interest from June 6th, 1860, until June 6th, 1861; and from April 10th, 1865, till paid; and if not paid within ninety days from the date of the decree, then commissioners named were to proceed to sell the land, & c. And thereupon Walker applied to a judge of this court for an appeal; which was allowed.
F. L. Smith, Jr., for the appellant.
Smoot, for the appellee.
Whatever may be the diversity of opinion in respect to the validity of acts done under the authority of the confederate government, there is one proposition, certainly, as to which the courts are now generally agreed: that is, that the late war between the two sections was a civil war in the most literal and comprehensive sense of the term, and was attended by all the incidents and consequences of a war between independent nations. Having no common superior to judge between them, the two sections stood precisely in the same predicament as two nations who engage in a contest and have recourse to arms. Numerous cases in the state courts might be cited in support of these propositions; but it is unnecessary. A reference to some of the decisions made by the supreme court of the United States will be conceded by all as sufficient for that purpose. In Brown v. Hiatts, 15 Wall. U. S. R. 177, Mr. Justice Field said: It is unnecessary to go at length over the grounds upon which this court has repeatedly held that the statutes of limitation of the several states did not run against the right of action of parties during the continuance of the civil war. It is sufficient to state, that the war was accompanied by the general incidents of war between independent nations; that the inhabitants of the Confederate States, on the one hand, and of the loyal states, on the other, became thereby reciprocally enemies to each other, and were liable to be so treated, without reference to their individual dispositions or opinions; that during its continuance all commercial intercourse and correspondence between them were interdicted by principles of public law, as well as by express enactments of congress; that all contracts previously made between them were suspended; and that the courts of each belligerent were closed to the citizens of the other. See opinion of Judge Joynes in Billgerry v. Branch & Sons, 19 Gratt. 393, 417, and cases cited.
The prohibition here alluded to by Mr. Justice Field, it has been held in numerous cases, affected debtors and creditors on either side equally with those who did not bear that relation; so that the transmission or payment of money for any purpose was utterly forbidden. It was unlawful for the debtor to pay, it was unlawful for the creditor to receive. It was unlawful for them to have any intercourse communication, or correspondence, whatever, upon any subject or for any purpose. The operation of the contract during the war was as completely suspended as though it had never had any existence. In the language of ...
To continue reading
Request your trial