Slike strani
PDF
ePub

Syllabus.

and admiralty cases, in the circuit and district courts, shall conform, as near as may be, to the practice, pleadings, and forms and modes of proceeding existing at the time in like causes in the courts of record of the state within which such circuit or district courts are held, any rule of court to the contrary notwithstanding." Effect may be given in the present case to this provision of the statute, without running counter to § 716. The fallacy of the argument against the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court, in such cases, is in construing § 716 as an exception out of the general grant of jurisdiction to that court over all suits in which the controversy is between citizens of different states; whereas it is a general grant of power to issue all writs necessary to the exercise of their jurisdiction — a power which would probably have been implied without an express grant.

In our judgment, the cases ought not to have been remanded, and that the judgments of the Circuit Court remanding the same should be reversed.

HERRON v. DATER.

ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA.

Argued January 19, 20, 1887.- Decided March 7, 1887.

In Pennsylvania a warrant and survey, and payment of the purchase money, confer a legal estate as against all but the Commonwealth, together with a legal right of entry which will support ejectment; and this action of ejectment may be maintained by the owner who paid the purchase money, without any conveyance from the person in whose name the application was made and the warrant issued.

The plaintiff in an action of ejectment in Pennsylvania, to prove title, offered in evidence certified copies of (1) an application numbered 12,969, in the names of six separate persons for six separate tracts of four hundred acres each, adjoining lands of A; (2) of old purchase voucher, dated November 26, 1793, also numbered 12,969, in the same names, with like quantities of land also adjoining lands of A; (3) of old purchase blotter dated June 14, 1794, also numbered 12,969, at the side of which were

Opinion of the Court.

written the words: "A gen'l rec't wrote," and in the body of which, after the number and date and the name of A, were the words "6 W'r'ts of 400 a's Am't, 2400 a's 50s p. c't p'd specie ch. £ 60 = = ==. Fees 60s p'd, rem'r charge of 168 D's. Rec't d'd." Held, (1) That these documents were competent evidence to prove the payment of the money and by whom it was paid; (2) That the money for the six tracts was all paid in full by A; (3) That he was the owner of the warrant by virtue thereof; (4) That notwithstanding the differences between the date of the application and warrant (November 26, 1793), and the date of the receipt of the purchase money (June 14, 1794), the issue of the warrant was, in view of the settled practice in Pennsylvania, evidence of the payment of the purchase money sufficient to establish prima facie a legal title in A, which was not liable to be overcome by a subsequent patent from the Commonwealth, purporting on its face, but not otherwise proved, to be connected with the warrant and survey, and under which no claim of title had been asserted for more than seventy-five years.

When the Orphans' Court in Pennsylvania has jurisdiction of a subject matter, its orders, judgments, and decrees therein cannot be impeached collaterally.

The plaintiff in ejectment in Pennsylvania having proved title to the premises by establishing a warrant and survey and payment of the purchase money perfected by return of the deputy surveyor into the land office, evidence on the part of the defendant of a subsequent patent from the Commonwealth, with no proof of its connection with the warrant and survey except recitals to that effect in it, is inadmissible.

tiff.

EJECTMENT. Plea: The general issue. Judgment for plainDefendant sued out this writ of error. The case is stated in the opinion of the court.

Mr. R. P. Allen for plaintiffs in error. Mr. A. H. Dill and Mr. John G. Reading, Jr., were with him on the brief.

Mr. John W. Ryon and Mr. James Ryon for defendants in Mr. Samuel Linn was with them on the brief.

error.

MR. JUSTICE MATTHEWS delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an action of ejectment brought by the defendants in error in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Western District of Pennsylvania to recover possession of a tract of land situated in Northumberland and Columbia counties, containing about two hundred and thirty acres. There was a

VOL. CXX-30

Opinion of the Court.

verdict and judgment in favor of the plaintiffs below, to reverse which this writ of error is brought.

Both parties claim title under the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. It appears from the bills of exception taken during the progress of the trial that the plaintiffs put in evidence a certified copy of a document called an application, No. 12,969, as follows:

"William Elliott applies for four hundred acres of land on a branch of Roaring Creek, adjoining Dr. Thomas Ruston's lands, in Catawissa Township, Northumberland County.

"Joseph Tyson applies for four hundred acres of land lying one mile north of a road leading from Reading to Sunbury, adjoining Dr. Thomas Ruston's other land, in Catawissa Township, in North'd County.

"William Shannon applies for four hundred acres of land lying one mile north of a road leading from Reading to Sunbury, adjoining other lands of Dr. Thomas Ruston in Catawissa Township, North'd County.

"Lewis Walker applies for four hundred acres of land lying one mile north of a road leading from Reading to Sunbury, adjoining Dr. Thomas Ruston's other lands, in Catawissa Township, North'd County.

"Nathaniel Brown applies for four hundred acres of land on a branch of Roaring Creek, adjoining Dr. Thomas Ruston's lands, in Catawissa Township, North'd County.

"Ebenezer Branham applies for four hundred acres of land on a branch of Roaring Creek, adjoining Dr. Thomas Ruston's lands, in Catawissa Township, North'd County."

Also a certified copy of old purchase voucher No. 12,969, as follows:

"26 November, 1793. Certified copy of old purchase voucher No. 12,969. Joseph Tyson, 400 a's lying one mile north of a road leading from Reading to Sunbury, adjoining Dr. Thomas Ruston's other land, in Northumberland County.

"William Elliott-400 a's situate on a branch of Roaring Creek, adjoining Dr. Thomas Ruston's other land, in Catawissa Township, — said county.

"Lewis Walker-400 a's lying one mile north of a road

Opinion of the Court.

leading from Reading to Sunbury, adjoining Dr. Thomas Ruston's other land, in said county.

"William Shannon-400 a's lying one mile north of a road leading from Reading to Sunbury, adjoining Dr. Thomas Ruston's other lands, in said county.

"Ebenezer Branham-400 a's on a branch of Roaring Creek, joining Dr. Thomas Ruston, in said county.

"Nathaniel Brown-400 a's on a branch of Roaring Creek, joining land of Dr. Thomas Ruston, in said county. "Amount, £60-interest from date thereof.

"[On the side]: A gen'l rec't wrote."

The plaintiffs also offered in evidence a copy of old purchase blotter No. 12,969, as follows:

"1794,
June 14.

12969.

Dr. Ruston. 6 W'r'ts of 400 a's Am't, 2400 a's, 50s p. c't p'd specie ch.,

Fees 608 p'd, rem'r charge of 168 D's.

"Rec't d'd."

£60

To this the counsel for the defendants objected on two grounds: 1st, that the warrant to Lewis Walker appearing to be dated November 26, 1793, it was not competent to prove payment of the purchase money by Ruston on June 14, 1794; and, 2d, that if any title whatever accrued to Ruston, it would be but a resulting trust, as the plaintiffs did not propose to follow it with any evidence showing a conveyance of the legal title to Ruston or those claiming under him, or any possession of the land by him or them, or the bringing of any action of ejectment to recover it within twenty-one years from the date of the warrant. The objections were overruled, and an exception taken.

The plaintiffs also put in evidence a copy of the warrant to Lewis Walker, dated the 26th of November, 1793, for 400 acres adjoining Dr. Thomas Ruston's other lands; and a copy of a survey for Lewis Walker, dated the 22d of October, 1794, in pursuance of the warrant, containing 3711 acres. The survey was followed by a certified copy of the return made by William Gray, deputy surveyor, into the land office, show-.

Opinion of the Court.

ing that on February 23, 1795, he returned to the land office the Lewis Walker survey for 371 acres. Warrants and surveys of five other tracts were introduced in evidence in connection with the warrant and survey of the Lewis Walker tract, being the same tracts of land which are mentioned in the application and purchase voucher. The plaintiffs then traced title into Nicholas Le Favre by virtue of a judgment against Thomas Ruston in 1796, and levy on lands of the defendant Ruston, including the Lewis Walker tract, and a sale and conveyance of the same to Le Favre by a marshal's deed. Nicholas Le Favre having died, his will was admitted to probate on the 12th of August, 1815, on which day William R. Smith took out letters of administration with the will annexed. A schedule attached to the will of the testator, of his lands in Pennsylvania, included the Lewis Walker tract for 3711 acres. In 1836, William R. Smith, the administrator with the will annexed of Nicholas Le Favre, petitioned the Orphans' Court of Philadelphia for an order to sell real estate to pay the debts of the decedent. By further proceedings upon said application in the Orphans' Court of Northumber land County, where a portion of the lands of Le Favre were located, a decree of sale was obtained, and the Lewis Walker tract, among others, was sold on the 9th of May, 1837, to Joseph Brobst, as the property of Nicholas Le Favre. A deed was made to Brobst for the land, and the sale confirmed in Northumberland County, where the lands were located. By sundry mesne conveyances the title of Brobst was vested in the plaintiffs below.

There was evidence tending to show that the lands in controversy were wild and unimproved until 1864, when the parties through whom the plaintiffs claim title took actual possession thereof, and improved the same by the erection of a house and sawmill, and put to work a corps of men for the purpose of proving the coal veins. These operations and expenditures were continued for a period of about eighteen months, at a cost of between $40,000 and $50,000, when the work was suspended as not being profitable, but possession was maintained through agents and tenants until 1875, when the defendants took forcible possession, claiming title.

« PrejšnjaNaprej »