Williams v. United States

• Decision Date: 02 March 1891
• Citation: 11 S.Ct. 457,138 U.S. 514,34 L.Ed. 1026
• Parties: WILLIAMS v. UNITED STATES
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

138 U.S. 514

11 S.Ct. 457

34 L.Ed. 1026

WILLIAMS v. UNITED STATES.

March 2, 1891.

John H. Hickcox, Jr., and Jas. K. Redington, for appellant.

Asst. Atty. Gen. Parker, for the United States.

Mr. Justice BREWER, after stating the facts as above, delivered the opinion of the court.

The first contention of appellant is that this action could not be maintained because the state of Nevada was not made party, it holding the legal title; second, that the circuit court erred in finding that there was fraud or wrong, by which the title was passed to the state of Nevada; and third, that, even if there were fraud or wrong in this matter, the outcome of the proceedings was the necessary one, and therefore the bill should not have been sustained.

With respect to the first contention. It cannot be doubted that the certification operated to transfer the legal title to the state, (Frasher v. O'Connor, 115 U. S. 102, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1141;) nor that the contract between the state and appellant passed to him the equitable title, the legal title being retained by the state, simply as security for the unpaid part of the purchase money. The proposition, therefore, is that where there are outstanding two interests or titles, held by different parties, the real owner cannot proceed against either without joining the other; that only one action can be maintained to divest these parties of their separate titles; and that to that action both adverse holders must be parties. The proposition is not sound. A court of equity has jurisdiction to divest either one of the adverse holders of his title, in a separate action. Doubtless the court has power, when a separate action is instituted against one, to require that the other party be brought into the suit, if it appears necessary to prevent wrong and injury to either party and to thus fully determine the title in one action; but such right does not oust the court of jurisdiction of the separate action against either. It has jurisdiction of separate actions against each of the adverse holders; and there is no legal compulsion, as a matter of jurisdictional necessity, to the joinder of both parties as defendants in one action. There are special reasons why this rule should be recognized in this case. It may be that the circuit court would not have jurisdiction of an action again the state; that an action agaist a state, on behalf of the United States, can be maintainable only in this court; and that when brought in this court no other party than the state can be made defendant. We do not decide that these things are so, but suggest the difficulty which must have presented itself to the counsel for the government, and which justifies a separate suit against the holder of the equitable title. The state of Nevada might have intervened. It did not; doubtless, because it felt it had no real interest It was no intentional party to any wrong upon the general government. if its agency had been used by the wrong-doer to obtain title from the general government; if, conscious of no wrong on its part, it had obtained from the general government the legal title, and conveyed it away to the alleged wrong-doer,—it might justly say that it had no interest in the controversy, and that it would leave to the determination of the courts the question of right between the government and the alleged wrong-doer, and conform its subsequent action to that determination. That, certainly, is the dignified and proper course to be pursued by a state which is charged to have been the innocent instrumentality and agent by which a title to real estate has been wrongfully obtained from the general government. The jurisdiction of the circuit court over this bill was properly sustained.

The second contention is that the court erred in finding that there was fraud or wrong by which the title was taken away from the general government. The allegations of the bill are of fraud and wrong, but they also show inadvertence and mistake in the certification to the state; and it cannot be doubted that inadvertence and mistake are, equally with fraud and wrong, grounds for judicial interference to divest a title acquired thereby. This is equally true in transactions between individuals, and in those between the government and its patentee. If, through inadvertence and mistake, a wrong description is placed in a deed by an individual, and property not intended to be conveyed is conveyed, can there be any doubt of the jurisdiction of a court of equity to interfere and restore to the party the title which he never intended to convey? So of any other inadvertence and mistake, vital in its nature, by which a title is conveyed when it ought not to have been conveyed. The facts and proceedings attending this transfer of title are fully disclosed in the bill. They point to fraud and wrong, and equally to inadvertence and mistake; and, if the latter be shown, the bill is sustainable, although the former charge against the defendant may not have been fully established. For satisfactory answer to this inquiry, a fuller statement of facts is necessary. On May 19, 1879, defendant made in the proper land-office of the United States a desert-land entry for 240 acres, including therein the lands in controversy. 19 St. 377. On July 26, 1879, he conveyed to the New Philadelphia Silver Mining Company, for the sum of $5,000, 80 acres thereof, described as the E. 1/2 of S. E. 1/4, section 33, township 8, range 50 east, Nye County, Nev. The conveyance was with this warrnaty: 'And the party of the first part agrees to and with the party of the second part that he has full right and power to sell and convey the said premises and water-rights, and that they are now free from all incumbrances, sales, or mortgages.' Within the succeeding year the grantee erected a 10-stamp quartz-mill on the premises, at the expense of about $58,000. Becoming embarrassed, this 80 acres, with improvements, passed by sheriff's and receiver's deeds to Matthiessen and Ward, the title thus passing finally by the 16th of December, 1881. the consideration of $5,000, named in the original deed, was paid to Williams. On May 20, 1882, he executed papers for the relinquishment to the government of his desert-land entry, and at the same time made application to the state for the purchase of these lands as agricultural lands. At his instance, the state, on July 29, 1882, applid t o the government for a certification of these lands. On August 12, 1882, by letter from the land department, cancellation of the desert-land entry was made on the books of the local land-office, and subsequently, as stated, in May, 1883, the lands were certified to the state, and thereafter the application of Williams for purchase from the state was accepted, and the contract entered into. Further, it appears that on June 20, 1881, the receiver of the Philadelphia Company wrote to the commissioner of the land-office, giving notice of the company's interest in these lands, and asking instructions as to steps necessary to protect its This information was followed, on February 10, 1882, by interview and communication to the department from the counsel of Matthiessen and Ward. On April 14, 1882, the commissioner answered the inquiry of the receiver, informing him that desert-land claims were not assignable. On May 23d he advised Ward that there was no evidence in his office showing a relinquishment by Williams of the desert-land entry. In August, 1882, the land register of Nevada, replying to an inquiry of Matthiessen and Ward, said: 'Mr. Williams informed me that he would try and procure the cancellation of his desert-land entry. We have received no notice as yet of the cancellation of said entry.' As, weeks before, Williams had filed relinquishment papers in that office, and the...