Yancey v. Hopkins

• Decision Date: 18 October 1810
• Citation: 15 Va. 419
• Parties: Yancey v. Hopkins
• Court: Virginia Supreme Court

15 Va. 419

Yancey v. Hopkins

Supreme Court of Virginia

October 18, 1810

[Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material]

Lund Hopkins of the County of Powhatan, on the first of March, 1799, filed his bill in the late High Court of Chancery, against Robert Yancey and Richard Faris; setting forth that " Joseph Hopkins, father of the plaintiff, was in his life-time seised in fee of a tract of land in the County of Louisa, containing by estimation 400 acres, and, being so seised, departed this life in the year 1780, having first made his last will, by virtue of which the plaintiff became entitled in fee to the whole of the said land, after deducting his mother's dower; that, while the plaintiff was an infant, (but in what year he could not ascertain,) the defendant Robert Yancey, a Deputy Sheriff of the County of Louisa, pretending that taxes were due on the plaintiff's part of the said land, affected to expose the same to public auction, to raise the amount of those taxes; that no such taxes were due; or, if any, not more than 31. or 41.; that no notice was given of the time and place of sale; or, if any was given, it did not describe to whom the land belonged; that no persons were present, except Robert Yancey himself, and two other persons, (neither of whom bade,) when the plaintiff's part aforesaid, being worth from four to six dollars per acre, was struck out, by the said Yancey's direction, to himself, at the price of 41. or some other equally trifling; that he not only acted fraudulently, but never was authorized in his conduct by the High Sheriff whose Deputy he was; that, combining with the defendant Faris, he had pretended to sell the said land to the said Faris; that both of them knew that the plaintiff was an infant at the time of the sale by auction, and did not exceed twenty-six years of age on the 23d day of November, 1798; that the plaintiff, in the year 1785, had removed from Louisa to the City of Richmond; that no application was ever made to his guardian, Anthony Hayden, for any taxes due from him; that he had never returned to live in Louisa; that Faris was well acquainted with all the circumstances of the said sale at auction; he leaving, at the time, on that part allotted to the plaintiff's mother for dower; that there was sufficient personal property on the said land to satisfy any taxes due thereon; that the said Faris had paid little or no money for the purchase made by him of the said Yancey; and that they both had derived considerable profits, having been in possession of the land ever since the auction aforesaid."

The bill therefore prayed " a perfect answer, from both the defendants, as to the premises; that all official or other writings, whether deeds or obligations, which had passed between them concerning the said land should be directed to be cancelled; that they should be decreed to surrender to the plaintiff possession of the land, and account with him for all rents and profits arising therefrom; or that he might receive any other or further relief more agreeable to equity."

The separate answer of Robert Yancey admitted " that he sold a part of the tract of land mentioned in the bill for the taxes due thereon for the years 1784 and 1785; but averred that he was fully authorized so to do both by law, and by his principal the High Sheriff; that he this defendant had paid the taxes of said land into the treasury, or that there was a judgment against his principal, he does not now recollect which, but inclines to believe the latter; that there was no property that this defendant knew of on said land, of the estate of Hopkins, whereof these taxes could be made; and, as the law then stood, there was no other alternative but to sell a part of the land for the taxes due; that the quantity of non-resident lands in the County of Louisa is very considerable; that, at the rate of taxation on lands at that time, the amount thereof, being unpaid, would have completely ruined this defendant, who was then just beginning to act for himself; that the land was sold in the name of Elizabeth Hopkins; that, in that name, it was charged by the Commissioners of the land tax, who by law make out the book for the Sheriff; that there was no land charged to Joseph Hopkins, or Lund Hopkins; that, by the will of Joseph Hopkins, then deceased, this land was left to his wife Elizabeth Hopkins, ^[*] who, at the time the assessment was made, occupied and possessed the same; consequently, the land was charged in the proper person's name; at all events, the land owed taxes to the Commonwealth, and it was the duty of the owner to come to the Sheriff and pay it."

This defendant further said, that " the land was advertised four weeks in the Virginia Gazette, according to law; nay, that it had been twice advertised; that, on the last day, no person coming to pay the taxes, and this defendant knowing not to whom to apply, the said Elizabeth Hopkins having intermarried, and gone off, God knows where, the land was exposed to sale, and sold on one month's credit at the most noted place on the premises; that there were several persons present, either of whom this defendant believes could have purchased if they chose; that he did not wish to buy himself, and requested the by-standers to bid; none of whom making a bid, it was, after crying a considerable time, knocked out on this defendant at his bid; that he then gave notice that he would give up his purchase, if the executor of Hopkins, one Anthony Hayden, would come and pay up the taxes and expenses of selling the land a short time; that he believes that said Hayden was advised thereof, for that he made application some time after (this defendant thinks about six or eight months) to know if the land would then be given up if the taxes were paid; that this defendant then offered to give up the same if he, Hayden, would repay him what he had advanced, and his expenses, & c.; that Hayden said he had no estate of Hopkins in his hands, but would try to settle it speedily; but so it is that this defendant has not received one single penny, nor has said Hayden communicated with him about the land since; nor has any other person:" that, after waiting several years, " and having the annual taxes to pay thereon, this defendant had a deed made to him by the High Sheriff therefor, and, to indemnify himself for the original purchase, and the taxes which he had paid for about fourteen years, sold the same to the other defendant."

This defendant insisted " that the lands of infants were not exempt from the payment of those taxes more than any other person; there being no provision in their favour in the law as it then stood; " that from an acknowledgment in the bill it appeared " that the complainant had been of age more than six years in November, 1798; which is double the time the law, as it now stands, allows infants to pay the arrears of taxes; yet, during all this time, the complainant had not applied to this defendant to repay him the taxes which he had paid on said land: if an application of this nature had been made even three years ago, this defendant is confident that he would have given up the land upon the payment of the taxes, & c.; that this defendant did not have a deed executed until the year 1795; one reason for which was, that he did not wish to hold the land; but, in all this time, no person coming to repay him what he had actually advanced, he then determined to have a deed therefor." He farther denied having received any profit or emolument whatever from the said land, except the money arising from the sale thereof; averring that he always considered the land as poor, and of little value, and the rent no object; " the plantation which was on it being old field, and no improvements to accommodate a family."

The defendant Richard Faris in his answer averred " that he conceived himself a fair and bona fide purchaser; " that he was present at the sale by auction, relative to which, and to Yancey's declaration that he would give up the land, on receiving the taxes, & c. he mentioned the circumstances nearly according to Yancey's own statement; " that there was no property of the complainant, or of the estate of Joseph Hopkins, deceased, on said land, at the time of the sale, nor for some considerable time before, whereof the taxes could be made; that Anthony Hayden lived out of the County of Louisa; that this defendant is well assured that the said Hayden knew of the taxes being due; that the land had not been occupied by any person since the sale, until the last year; except a part which Anthony Hayden rented out, and for which payment was made to him, and the complainant; that, after the death of Joseph Hopkins, Elizabeth Hopkins, widow of said Joseph, resided and lived on the said land, and held the whole tract as her own until she intermarried with one Samuel Baber; after which she took her third part of said land."

A number of depositions were taken and filed, from which, taken together, it appeared that Yancey's account was in substance correct, of the manner in which the sale by auction was conducted; of the declaration made by him at the time and of the subsequent transactions; that, at the time, and before the sale took place, the said Yancey inquired of the persons present what part of the land would be least injurious to the tract, to be sold off for the taxes thereof; that the east end was generally agreed to be that part, and, accordingly, the part sold was laid off on the east end; that the land in question (together with many other tracts) was first advertised to be sold at Louisa Court-house on a Court day; but none were sold; it being doubtful whether a sale at the Court-house would be...