Wetzel v. Minnesota Ry Transfer Co., 496.

• Decision Date: 10 December 1894
• Docket Number: 496.
• Citation: 65 F. 23
• Parties: WETZEL et al. v. MINNESOTA RAILWAY TRANSFER CO. et al.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

65 F. 23

WETZEL et al. v. MINNESOTA RAILWAY TRANSFER CO. et al.

No. 496.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

December 10, 1894

Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Minnesota.

In 1848 a warrant for 160 acres of land was issued to R., the widow of a soldier in the Mexican war, and her minor children, of whom she was guardian. In the same year, R., acting individually and as guardian of her children, but without first obtaining the leave of the orphans' court, as required by statute, sold and assigned the warrant to one T who located it, and in 1850 received a patent for the land which subsequently became very valuable, and passed, by numerous mesne conveyances, into the hands of many holders who made valuable improvements. The youngest child of R attained majority in 1863. In 1892 the surviving children of R., and heirs of deceased children, brought this bill to establish their title to the land; alleging, as reasons for their delay, that they were ignorant till 1889 of the issue of the warrant, and that they were illiterate and inexperienced persons. Held, that as the plaintiffs were acquainted with facts which, under the law, entitled them to receive a land warrant on account of their father's services, and as they are presumed to have known the law, and as slight attention to their rights would have disclosed the fact, many years prior to the filing of the suit, that a land warrant had in fact been issued in their favor, and had been assigned and located, and as many innocent parties had expended their money on the land, and acquired interest therein, which they supposed to be valid, and which it would be inequitable to disturb, the delay of the plaintiffs amounted to such laches as would bar a suit for equitable relief. Held, further, that the plaintiffs could not plead ignorance of the right asserted as an excuse for years of delay in asserting it, inasmuch as it appeared that such ignorance was due to their own neglect, in failing to take any steps to secure a land warrant which they knew they were entitled to. Held, further, that ignorance of one's rights will not serve as an excuse in a court of equity for not bringing a suit to enforce them, when such ignorance is fairly attributable to negligence, or to the party's failure to make such inquiries with respect to his rights as, with the information at his command, he ought to have made.

This was a suit by the appellants, who were complainants in the circuit court, to establish their title to an undivided interest in a certain tract of land situated in Ramsey county, Minn., to wit, the S.W. 1/4 of section 28, township 29 N., range 23 W., which was patented by the United States to Nathan C. D. Taylor on the 20th of March, 1850, as assignee of Elizabeth Remsen, in her own right, and as guardian of the minor heirs of George W. Remsen, deceased. The facts out of which the controversy arose may be stated with substantial accuracy, as follows: George W. Remsen was a soldier in the Mexican war, and by virtue of his enlistment and service he became entitled, under the provisions of the ninth section of an act of congress approved on February 11, 1847, to 160 acres of land. 9 Stat. 123, 125. Said Remsen died in the service in the month of October, 1847, and under the provisions of said act his right to said land inured to the benefit of his surviving wife and children. On September 30, 1848, a warrant was duly issued to Elizabeth Remsen, widow of said George W. Remsen, and to Harriet A., Mary Ann, John W., Elizabeth, and George W. A. Remsen, children and heirs at law of said George W. Remsen, deceased, who was described in the warrant as 'late a private in Company K, third regiment, United States infantry. ' At the time of the issuance of said warrant, all of said children were minors; Harriet A. Remsen, the oldest child, being then about 17 years of age. Section 9 of the act of February 11, 1847, aforesaid, provided in substance that, in the event of the issuance of a land warrant under said act to the minor children of a deceased soldier, 'then the legally constituted guardian of such minor children shall, in conjunction with such of the children, if any, as may be of full age, upon being duly authorized by the orphans' or other court having probate jurisdiction, have power to sell and dispose of such certificate or warrant for the benefit of those interested. ' Elizabeth Remsen qualified as guardian of all the minors aforesaid, except Harriet A., the oldest, before the orphans' court of the county of Philadelphia, state of Pennsylvania, on October 6, 1848. Subsequently, and on the 11th of October, 1848, she sold and assigned the land warrant in question to Nathan C. D. Taylor, who located the same on the land now in controversy, and received a patent therefor, as heretofore stated. The assignment of said land warrant was executed by said Elizabeth Remsen, the mother, in her own behalf, 'and as guardian of the minor children of George W. Remsen, deceased'; but she appears to have obtained no order from the orphans' court aforesaid, authorizing her to sell her children's interest therein. The assignment of the land warrant was also executed by Harriet A. Remsen, the oldest daughter, who had previously become the wife of Jacob Heyer, but her husband did not join with her in the execution of the assignment. By numerous mesne conveyances, covering a period of many years, the title to the aforesaid tract of land thus acquired by Nathan C. D. Taylor has now become vested in very many persons, who are in possession of different parcels of the land, and who were made parties defendant to the bill of complaint. All of the aforesaid minor children of George W. Remsen, deceased, lived to attain their majority, and for some years thereafter. The youngest of them, George W. A. Remsen, attained his majority as early as the year 1863; the others, except Harriet A., in the years 1856, 1858, and 1861. Elizabeth Wetzel, one of the appellants, is the former wife of George W. Remsen, who died in October, 1847, she having married Paul Wetzel since the death of her first husband. Harriet A. Van Zant, another of the appellants, is the oldest daughter of said George W. Remsen, who joined with her mother in the sale and assignment of the land warrant, as heretofore stated. John Wesley Remsen, also one of the appellants, is a son of George W. Remsen, deceased. The other children of said deceased heretofore named, to wit, Mary Ann, Elizabeth, and George W. A. Remsen, appear to be dead; and their interests are represented in the present proceedings by the other appellants, to wit, by Emma F. Hergesheimer and Maggie L. Beckman, who were the daughters of Mary Ann Remsen, and by Mary J. Remsen and her children, George W., Clara B., and Mabel Remsen, who are, respectively the widow and lineal descendants of George W. A. Remsen, now deceased. Elizabeth Remsen appears to have died, leaving no lineal descendants. It was claimed in behalf of the appellants that the sale and assignment of the aforesaid land warrant were utterly void, as to the interests of all the minor children of George W. Remsen, other than Harriet A., who joined in the assignment of the same, because the assignment made by their mother and guardian was not authorized by any order or decree of the orphans' court of the county of Philadelphia, as the act of congress required. They therefore prayed that the title of such minor heirs to an undivided interest in the tract of land aforesaid might be established, and that the defendants holding under the patent issued to Nathan C. D. Taylor might be adjudged to hold the legal title so acquired in trust for the appellants, and that they be compelled to convey the legal title to the appellants. On the final hearing the proceeding was dismissed on the ground of laches.

C. W. Bunn and William C. Mayne (William E. Bramhall, on the brief), for appellants.

C. K. Davis (F. B. Kellogg and C. A. Severance, on the brief), for appellees.

Before CALDWELL, SANBORN, and THAYER, Circuit Judges.

THAYER Circuit Judge, after stating the case as above, delivered the opinion of the court.

The bill of complaint in this suit appears to have been filed in the circuit court of the United States for the district of Minnesota on the 28th day of May, 1892,-- nearly 44 years after the land warrant which was issued to the widow of George W. Remsen and to his minor children was sold and assigned by the widow, acting for herself and as guardian of said minors, to Nathan C. D. Taylor, under whom the defendants not claim. When the suit was instituted, more than 42 years had come and gone since Taylor had located the warrant on the lands in controversy, and had obtained a patent therefor from the United States, and nearly 30 years had elapsed since the youngest minor child of George W Remsen had attained his majority. In the meantime, two large cities, Minneapolis and St. Paul, had grown up in the immediate vicinity of the place where Taylor had located the warrant. For a number of years prior to the commencement of the suit, the property in question was within the outboundaries of one of these cities. It had been, to a large extent, subdivided into lots and blocks. It had become of immense value, and had been sold in separate parcels to numerous purchasers, who had made extensive improvements thereon. Some idea may be formed of the extent to which the property in question has changed hands, and of the number of persons whose...