Wright v. Davis

133 S.E. 659, 145 Va. 370
Supreme Court of Virginia·Decided June 17, 1926·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Prentis, P.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

This record and the briefs present a congeries of original, amended and supplemental bills, answers and demurrers, arguments and contentions, based upon parol evidence consisting of the recollections and the forgettings of the parties interested, testifying as to occurrences of twenty-four years ago, introduced to vary and contradict cotemporaneous documentary evidence.

We shall not attempt to recite these confusing details. We are relieved of that necessity because, as one result of their various concerted plans to buy, sell and combine several cotton mills and also to develop and utilize the water power of the Appomattox river at Petersburg, they acquired the Pocahontas Mills prop[372] erty, separated it from its water power, and thereafter executed a certain declaration of trust agreement and lease of such water power. The construction of this agreement is the fundamental question which is involved in this suit.

Charles Hall Davis obtained an option upon the Pocahontas Mills property, apparently acting for himself and his five associates. ' Exercising this option he, with their knowledge, took a deed from that company to himself, dated May 26, 1903, to “all the right, title an.d interest it now owns or possesses in the water of the Appomattox river, whether as owner of land abutting upon said river, or in any other manner, including all riparian rights, water rights, privileges, powers, or easements in water, of any and all kinds which now belong to the said party of the first part as appurtenant to its land, or in any other manner whatsoever.” This deed then recites the chain of title, and contains this further description: “And the land, hereby conveyed and granted is about ten (10) acres. And the water power hereby conveyed is all of the water power of the Appomattox river at this point, and at the dam of said company.” It also conveys “so much of its real estate, if any, as is, or may be, necessary legally to support the conveyance of the water rights, privileges, powers and easements hereby intended to be conveyed and make the said conveyance valid and sufficient to carry the fee simple title to said rights, privileges, powers and easements.”

By another deed dated the next day, May 27, 1903, the Pocahontas Mills conveyed its mills and the residue of its property (which the appellants now own), excepting the land and water power rights which had theretofore been conveyed tó Charles Hall Davis. Then, on October 1, 1903, an agreement and lease was [373] entered into between Charles Hall Davis and his five associates, George E. Fisher, E. A. Hartley, Augustus Wright, Richard B. Davis and Philip Rogers, as owners of the water power, of the one part, as grantors or lessors, and the Virginia Consolidated Milling Company, as grantees or lessees. It is over this agreement that this controversy chiefly arises. It is copied in the margin.* It was admitted to record October 20, 1903. There was no concealment, chicanery or fraud and all of the parties had actual notice of and participated in these transactions.

The decree from which this appeal is taken by the executors of Augustus Wright and E. A. Hartley, cancels this lease as a cloud upon the title of Davis and his said associates, who claim the Pocahontas water power under the conveyance to Davis of May 26, 1903, and decides that the property and water rights thereby conveyed now belong to Davis and his five [374] associates who are named in the lease and agreement oí October 1, 1903.

In the consideration of the legal questions raised, it should be borne in mind that this agreement and lease was signed by all of the parties interested, or by those under whom they claim, including Wright and Hartley. The controversy in its final form is as to whether the executors of Augustus Wright and E. A. Hartley, the appellants here, have since acquired this water power property so conveyed to Davis, or whether it still belongs to Charles Hall Davis as trustee holding the legal title for the benefit of himself, George E. Fisher, E. A. Hartley (appellant), Augustus Wright, (whose executors appeal), the successors of Richard B. Davis, deceased, and of Philip Rogers, deceased.

The claim of appellants seems to be largely based upon general considerations as to various antecedents cotemporaneous and subsequent transactions between [375] the parties. As we have indicated, however, we are of opinion that the two deeds and the agreement and lease referred to determine the legal and equitable rights of the parties as of their respective dates, and are conclusive. There is no obscurity in 'either of the deeds or the lease. The provisions of the lease may be thus fairly summarized:

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Wright v. Davis, 133 S.E. 659, 145 Va. 370 (Va. 1926).

133 S.E. 659 (Wright v. Davis) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Richard Talbott, Inc. v. Swango
18 Va. Cir. 5 (Fairfax County Circuit Court, 1988)
Hill v. 1550 Hinman Avenue Building Corp.
6 N.E.2d 128 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1936)
Hill v. 1550 Hinman Ave. Building Corp.
282 Ill. App. 109 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1935)