Wright v. Fullerton

30 F. Cas. 674, 2 Biss. 336

Opinion

DRUMMOND. Circuit Judge.

Perhaps the fair inference from the facts is, that Shep-hard had attended the sales of the lands, and had made selections, or had done something else in relation to the land, or for the defendant, in consideration of which, while the latter had paid all the purchase money, he agreed that the complainant might have one-lialf of the land, on reimbursing him one-half of the purchase money, with a certain interest. Shephard himself, though he appears to be living, was not a witness in the case, and the proof as to the particular circumstances of the arrangement between Shephard and the defendant seems to be confined almost entirely to the documentary evidence, viz.: the bond itself, and the assignments and conveyances affecting the land.

Giving to these documents the construction most favorable to the complainant, I am of the opinion that he has slept too long upon his rights to permit him now to call upon a court of equity to enforce them. He was clothed with the equities of Shephard under the bond, on the 4th of March, 1836, more than twenty years before he filed his bill. Conceding that he stood in all respects in the place of Shepard, then upon payment of the notes as they fell due, he was entitled to a conveyance of one-half of the land, or if sold, to one-half of the proceeds. Taking either aspect of the case, as presented iu the evidence, the result must be the same. If it be true that when the first note fell due payment was tendered by the complainant and refused, that was a denial of the right of the complainant pro tanto, under the contract If, in the fall of 1836, the whole amount due on the three notes of Shephard was tendered and refused, that was a denial of the whole contract. Then, if we take the statement of the complainant, denied by the defendant, as true, in the fall of 1836 he knew that the defendant, from some cause, repudiated the obligation of the contract. Whether, on this hypothesis, the first and only payment on the sale of the undivided half—which the defendant claims was his own half-r-of the Milwaukee land, was at that tune made, we do not know, but the complainant then had notice that the defendant repudiated his claim under the contract. Being thus met by the defendant, he submitted to that repulse without a motion to enforce it, for nearly twenty years. It is a fair inference, I think, that he acquiesced in the action of the defendant. Whatever view, therefore, we may take of the legal status of the parties under the facts, in 1836 a claim was made on one side, and refused or resisted on the other, and so, without a word further, the matter rested till Aug. 22. 1S56.

The inference becomes irresistible when connected with circumstances already mentioned, and with others which may be referred to. The defendant treated the land thenceforth as his own, paiu the taxes, disposed of some portion, has always retained a part of it down to the present time, and during all the time has been a resident of Cook county, Illinois, while the complainant in 1835 and 1836, and for a few years after-wards, was also a resident of Cook county, and then removed to Racine, Wisconsin, where he has ever since resided. Shortly after 1836, real estate greatly depreciated in value here, and so continued for several years. In 1856, when the bill was filed in this case, land had greatly risen in value. In addition to all this, the purchasers of block one- in the original town of Chicago, of whom the complainant and defendant were two, had sold several lots of that block, and had received considerable sums of money, amounting to some thousands of dollars—a large part of which had been put in improvements on the block, and when, having lost all under the mortgage given to secure the three-fourths of the purchase money, they were called on to refund sums that had been paid them, the complainant was not here, and therefore, as years passed by, and nothing was said or even hinted by him of the bond of October 31, 1835, it is not impossible that his non-action may have been the result, in part at least, of the complications growing out of the liabilities incurred in relation to block one, and of the fear, if any claim were made under that, he might be met with a counterclaim. However this may be, the complainant rested till the statute of limitations had run against the notes to Shephard and the bond of the defendant, and having been silent so long, he cannot be heard now.

NOTE. This case was appealed to the supreme court, and the decree below affirmed by a divided court, no opinion being filed, and the case not reported. Courts of equity will not aid in enforcing stale claims where the party has slept upon his rights. Platt v. Vattier, 9 Pet. [34 U. S.] 405; Hawley v. Cramer, 4 Cow*. 717; McKnight v. Taylor, 1 How. [42 U. S.] 161; Bowman v. Wathen, Id. 189. The lapse of twenty years ordinarily operates as a bar to a suit in equity connected with the recovery of land. Varick v. Edwards, 1 Hoff. Ch. 382; Pipher v. Lodge, 4 Serg. & R. 310. As to when a vendee may bring his bill for specific performance, and what laches will stop him, consult Peters v. Delaplaine, 49 N. T. 362.

It has been said by the complainant’s counsel, that this case is similar to the case of Seymour v. Freer, decided by this court [un-leported], and afterwards affirmed by the supreme court of the United States (8 Wall. [75 U. SJ 202). In some respects this case is like that, but if it were conceded that in substance the nature of the contract was the same, it must be borne in mind that the supreme court put the decision in Seymour v. Freer on the ground that nothing had ever been waived or lost by Price under the original contract. The language of the opinion of a majority of the court is: “The devisees might have held the property, and denied that, under the circumstances, the trust subsisted any longer. If Price acquiesced, his rights would have been at an end. Price might also have expressly or tacitly abandoned his claim. This would have worked the same result. Both parties might have concluded to continue their existing relations. * * * Was either of the alternatives adopted, and if so, which one? This is the turning point in the ease.”- And because the court was of opinion that both parties continued their existing relations, the original contract was held to govern their rights. If that were true here, the decision would necessarily be the same, but it is because one of the parties here signified his purpose to deny the claim under the original contract, and the other submitted thereto for nearly twenty. years, that this court must treat the contract as the parties themselves treated it—as obsolete.

I have not referred to the circumstance of the case having been permitted to stand in court for so many years without action, even after the bill was filed, because this may have been with the acquiescence of the defendant or his counsel.

The bill will be dismissed.