William Hopkins v. Charles Hebard
| Decision Date | 30 November 1914 |
| Docket Number | No. 30,30 |
| Citation | 35 S.Ct. 26,235 U.S. 287,59 L.Ed. 232 |
| Parties | WILLIAM R. HOPKINS, Benjamin P. Bole, Edward I. Leighton, Fred W. Bruch, George Reeves, and John Matthews, Petitioners, v. CHARLES HEBARD and the Smoky Mountain Land, Lumber, & Improvement Company |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Mr. C. Bentley Matthews for petitioners.
Messrs. John Franklin Shields, William A. Stone, and T. E. H. McCroskey for respondents.
In 1907, petitioners, alleged successors to David W. Belding and others, filed a bill of review against the heirs and representatives of Charles Hebard in the United States circuit court, eastern district of Tennessee, wherein they sought to reverse the decree for complainant, granted by the same court, June 10, 1899, and later affirmed by the circuit court of appeals in the cause entitled Hebard v. Belding, which was instituted to determine the title to some 7,000 acres of mountain land. The Smoky Mountain Land, Lumber, & Improvement Company intervened, denied the alleged equities and set up that it had purchased the property for value and in good faith. The trial court, having heard the matter upon the pleadings and evidence, dismissed the bill; and this was affirmed by the circuit court of appeals (114 C. C. A. 261, 194 Fed. 301). The cause is here upon certiorari.
The land in controversy lies on the waters of Slick Rock Creek, an affluent of the Little Tennessee river, and for some time prior to 1895 was claimed by Hebard under a grant from the state of Tennessee. Belding and others claimed it under a North Carolina grant. The rights of the disputants depended on the true location of the dividing line between the two states. If, after crossing the Little Tennessee, the line ran southward along Hangover ridge, the land was within Tennessee and belonged to Hebard; if, on the other hand, it ran along Slick Rock creek, the North Carolina grant was good, and Belding and others were the owners. In 1895 Hebard began a suit in the chancery court, Monroe county, Tennessee, seeking an adjudication of his rights. This was removed to the United States circuit court; elaborate proofs were taken; and, upon the hearing, the court determined that the state line ran along Hangover ridge, as contended by Hebard, and adjudged the title to be in him. The circuit court of appeals, in a final decree, entered July 13, 1900, affirmed this action, the opinion being written by the late Mr. Justice Lurton (43 C. C. A. 296, 103 Fed. 532).
Some years before the present suit was brought, the Smoky Mountain Land, Lumber, & Improvement Company, relying upon the last-mentioned final decree in the circuit court of appeals, in good faith and for value, acquired the interest of Hebard. As security for debt, Belding and others, by deeds of December, 1899, and March, 1900, transferred to Archer and McGarry, trustees, with power of sale, their interest in a large tract of land the boundaries of which included the 7,000 acres now in question, 'subject, nevertheless, to all deduc- tions, if any, arising by, through, or under the 'State Line' suit hereinafter mentioned' (Hebard v. Belding). Default having occurred, the trustees executed a deed to William R. Hopkins and others, petitioners here, with covenants of seisin and right to convey and special warranty; but from the covenants they expressly excepted 'all those lands situated at or near the state line, between the state of North Carolina and Tennessee, which were recovered in a certain action known as the 'State Line Suit,' which was pending in the United States circuit court for the eastern district of Tennessee, and was brought by one Hebard against David W. Belding and others, if future proceedings do not recover the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Glass Co v. Co
...intervened through transfer of the fraudulently procured patent or judgment to an innocent purchaser. Cf. Ibid; Hopkins v. Hebard, 235 U.S. 287, 35 S.Ct. 26, 59 L.Ed. 232. The Circuit Court did not hold that Hartford's fraud fell short of that which prompts equitable intervention, but thoug......
-
Sutter v. Easterly
... ... Peters. (5) The alleged affidavit ... of William C. Schilling was pure hearsay evidence, was not ... within any exception ... few miles west of Hopkins' Resort on Highway 50 near ... Second Creek which is about ten miles west ... innocent purchaser. Cf. Ibid.; Hopkins v. Hebard, ... 235 U.S. 287, 59 L.Ed. 232, 35 S.Ct. 26 ... ...
-
Toscano v. CIR
...intervened through transfer of the fraudulently procured patent or judgment to an innocent purchaser. Cf. Ibid; Hopkins v. Hebard, 235 U.S. 287, 35 S.Ct. 26, 59 L.Ed. 232." The Court also held that the moving party was not barred by lack of diligence, although it took over 10 years to uncov......
-
Paternity of Tompkins, In re
...intervened through transfer of the fraudulently procured patent or judgment to an innocent purchaser. Cf. Ibid; Hopkins v. Hebard, [1914] 235 U.S. 287 [35 S.Ct. 26, 59 L.Ed. 232]." Id. The doctrine of "fraud on the court" as applied in Hazel-Atlas has been narrowly applied by the courts and......