Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States
Wright-Blodgett Co. v. United States
236 U.S. 397
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Supreme Court of the United States
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 1915-02-23
- Topic
- general
How later courts describe this case
- “Notice must be denied previous to, and down to the time of paying the money ...”
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed Wright-Blodgett Co. v. United States. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Cited by
- 72 opinions
WRIGHT-BLODGETT CO.v. UNITED STATES,236 U.S. 397(1915)
35 S.Ct. 339
WRIGHT-BLODGETT COMPANYv. UNITED STATES.
SAMEv. SAME.
SAMEv. SAME.
SAMEv. SAME.
SAMEv. SAME.
APPEALS FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT.
Nos. 151, 152, 154, 155, 156.
Argued January 26, 27, 1915.
Decided February 23, 1915.
THE facts, which involve the validity of certain land patents
issued under the homestead laws of the United States, are stated
in the opinion.
When the United States brings a suit to annul a patent to land held by a vendee of the entryman, on the ground of fraud in the entryman it must prove actual notice of such fraud in said vendee.United Statesv.Clark,200 U.S. 601;United Statesv.Detroit Lumber Co.,200 U.S. 321.
When the United States seeks to annul a patent on grounds of fraud in the entryman and notice in his vendee, the specific details of the fraud and of the notice must be set out in the bill, and the probata must conform to the allegata.Maxwell LandGrant Case,121 U.S. 325;United Statesv.Barber LumberCo., 172 F. 950;United Statesv.Atherton,102 U.S. 372;Harrisonv.Nixon, 9 Pet. 503.
It will not do for the United States to allege notice in one way and through named individuals, and to attempt to prove notice in another way and through other individuals. See casessupra.
When seeking to annul a patent under the seal and signature of the President, the United States to succeed must adduce that class of evidence which commands respect and that amount which produces conviction. A patent cannot be set aside upon a bare preponderance of evidence which leaves the issue in doubt.Maxwell Land Grant Case,121 U.S. 381;Colorado Coal Co. v.United States,123 U.S. 307;133 U.S. 193;United Statesv.Stinson,197 U.S. 200.
The officials of the land office of the United States are affirmatively charged with the duty of investigating land entries and of ascertaining before issuing either a final receipt or patent, that the law is fully complied with. ThePage 399purchaser from a person holding a final receipt is charged with no such duty. On the contrary, he is entitled to buy on the faith of the patent and receipt and without looking for grounds of doubt. If the bill shows that the entryman's actions, settlement and proof deceived the trained sleuths of the Government land department, and that they issued both final receipt and patent, a strongde factopresumption arises that the entryman's vendee was likewise deceived.
General statements that representatives of the defendant were in the general neighborhood at the time of the purchase are not sufficient to overcome this presumption particularly so when the improvements placed upon the land were such as to create in the casual observer the belief that the law was fully complied with.Maxwell Land Grant Case,121 U.S. 381;Clark Case,200 U.S. 601.
Nor will such general statements prevail when the record shows that defendants were in the habit of buying land on a general cruiser's estimate without special examination and that they purchased the particular land in controversy on the advice of counsel of high standing after examination of the abstract of title thereto.
As Rev. Stat., § 2301 does not require a commuter to prove that he has not agreed to sell his land before receiving his final receipt, this court will not write such a provision into that statute.Williamsonv.United States,207 U.S. 455;United Statesv.Biggs,211 U.S. 507;Adamsv.Church,193 U.S. 510;United Statesv.Sullenberger,211 U.S. 525;United Statesv.Freeman,211 U.S. 523.
When the United States, while attempting to discharge its obligation to show actual notice on the part of the defendant of the fraud in the entryman places the entryman on the stand and the latter swears that he took an agent of the defendant to the land, pointed out to him the improvements which he, the entryman, had placed upon it and "assured" said agent that everything which thePage 400law required had been done, the United States not only fails to prove notice in the defendant but affirmatively establishes defendant's good faith and absence of notice.Mr. Assistant Attorney General Knaebel, with whomMr. S.W.Williamswas on the brief, for the United States:
The two lower courts having concurred in finding that the testimony respecting cultivation, residence, and improvements was false, and that the appellant had notice through its agents on the ground at the time of its purchase, the finding should not be disturbed unless clearly erroneous.
There is evidence to support the findings.
The Government having, with the requisite certainty, established that the entries were fraudulent, theonuswas upon the appellant to make good its plea ofbona fidepurchase without notice.
The evidence of the unlawful prior agreements was competent.
In support of these contentions, seeBaileyv.Sanders,228 U.S. 603;Boonev.Chiles, 10 Pet. 177;Gilsonv.United States,234 U.S. 380;Jonesv.Meehan,175 U.S. 1;Nealev.Neales, 9 Wall. 1;Texas Pac. Ry. v.R.R. Com.of La.,232 U.S. 338;United Statesv.Brannan, 217 F. 849;United Statesv.Cal. Oreg. Land Co.,192 U.S. 355;United Statesv.Clark,200 U.S. 601;United Statesv.Hill, 217 F. 841.
The appellant urges that it does not appear that the two courts concurred in their findings as the cases were decided in the District Court without opinion and, in three of the cases, there was testimony which, according to the Government, tended to show that the transactions were fraudulent not only because there had not been the residence and cultivation required by the statute and stated in the proofs, but also because of agreements prior to the commutation proofs to sell the lands to the appellant. But the District Court rendered its decree in the five cases on the same day; in two of these, it is not suggested that there was evidence of such anticipatory agreements, but the same decree was entered and must have proceeded on the evidence as to the lack of residence and cultivation. While the facts in the several cases vary in details they are so far alike in their main features with respect to residence and cultivation as to make it absolutely impossible to assume that any different conclusion of fact was reached by the District Court in the three cases than that at which it arrived in the two others. The two courts must be deemed to have concurred in their findings and in accordance with the well-settled rule their determination upon mere questions of fact will not be disturbed, unless clear error is shown.Stuartv.Hayden,169 U.S. 1,14;Towsonv.Moore,173 U.S. 17,24;Texas Pacific Ry. v.Railroad Commission,232 U.S. 338,339;Washington Securities Co. v.UnitedStates,234 U.S. 76,78;Gilsonv.United States,234 U.S. 380,384. An examination of the record fails to disclose any such error in the finding as to the fraud of the entrymen, and it is not necessary to recite the evidence.
It is insisted, however, that in the finding as to the standing of the appellant there was involved an erroneous application of the law. In substance, the argument comes to this, — that in a suit by the United States to cancel a patent upon the ground of fraud, where the land is heldPage 403by a grantee of the entryman, the Government must establish that the grantee is not abona fidepurchaser for value; that this must be shown by proof of a clear and cogent character; and that, measured by this standard, the Government's case was not made out. This contention proceeds upon an erroneous view of the governing principles as repeatedly set forth in the decisions of this court. These principles may be briefly restated: Where a patent is obtained by false and fraudulent proofs submitted for the purpose of deceiving the officers of the Government, and of thus obtaining public lands without compliance with the requirements of the law, while the patent is not void or subject to collateral attack, it may be directly assailed in a suit by the Government against the parties claiming under it. In such case, the respect due to a patent, the presumption that all the preceding steps required by the law had been observed before its issue, and the immense importance of stability of titles dependent upon these instruments, demand that suit to cancel them should be sustained only by proof which produces conviction.United Statesv.Minor,114 U.S. 233,239;MaxwellLand-Grant Case,121 U.S. 325,381;United Statesv.Stinson,197 U.S. 200,204,205;Diamond Coal Co. v.UnitedStates,233 U.S. 236,239. And, despite satisfactory proof of fraud in obtaining the patent, as the legal title has passed,bona fidepurchase for value is a perfect defense.ColoradoCoal Co. v.United States,123 U.S. 307,313;United Statesv.Stinson, supra; Diamond Coal Co. v.United States, supra;United Statesv.Detroit Lumber Co.,200 U.S. 321;UnitedStatesv.Clark,200 U.S. 601. But this is an affirmative defense which the grantee must establish in order to defeat the Government's right to the cancellation of the conveyance which fraud alone is shown to have induced. The rule as to this defense is thus stated inBoonev.Chiles, 10 Pet. 177, 211, 212: "In setting it up by plea or answer, it must state the deed of purchase, thePage 404date, parties, and contents briefly; that the vendor was seized in fee, and in possession; the consideration must be stated, with a distinct averment that it wasbona fideand truly paid, independently of the recital in the deed. Notice must be denied previous to, and down to the time of paying the money, and the delivery of the deed; and if notice is specially charged, the denial must be of all circumstances referred to, from which notice can be inferred; and the answer or plea show how the grantor acquired title. . . . The title purchased must be apparently perfect, good at law, a vested estate in fee-simple. . . . It must be by a regular conveyance; for the purchaser of an equitable title holds it subject to the equities upon it in the hands of the vendor, and has no better standing in a court of equity. . . . Such is the case which must be stated to give a defendant the benefit of an answer or plea of an innocent purchase without notice; the case stated must be made out, evidence will not be permitted to be given of any other matter not set out." See alsoSmithv.Orton, 131 U.S.,appendix, lxxv, lxxviii;Colorado Coal Co. v.United States, supra;United Statesv.California c. Land Co.,148 U.S. 31,41,42;United Statesv.Stinson, supra;Story's Eq. Pl., §§ 805, 805a, 806; 2 Pomeroy, Eq. Jur., §§ 745, 784;Jewettv.Palmer, 7 Johns. Ch. 65, 68;Seymourv.McKinstry,106 N.Y. 230;Gravesv.Coutant,31 N.J. Eq. 763;Sillymanv.King,36 Iowa 207;Prickettv.Muck,74 Wis. 199;Bankv.Ellis,30 Minn. 270;Lewisv.Lindley,19 Mont. 422. InUnited Statesv.Detroit Lumber Co., supra, the Circuit Court of Appeals found that the Detroit Company was a purchaser in good faith and this court reviewing the facts reached the same result. The Company had no knowledge or intimation of wrong until long after the issuance of the patents. InUnited Statesv.Clark, supra, both courts below had found that Clark had no actual knowledge of the alleged frauds or of facts sufficient to putPage 405him upon inquiry. Clark, his agents and advisers, testified that they did not know or suspect anything wrong. (200 U.S., p. 608.) The defense ofbona fidepurchaser for value was completely made out and what is said in the opinion must be read in the light of that fact. Nothing was shown to impair the case which the defendant had established; and there was no intention to depart from the well-settled rule to which we have referred.
In the present case the appellant had its agents upon the ground and it has been found that through these agents it had knowledge of the fraud. The contention that as the Government had alleged notice through particular agents it could not be shown that the Company had acquired knowledge through other agents than those named is without merit; the allegation in the bill as to the particular agents was surplusage. Upon the question of fact, with respect tobona fidesin its purchase, both courts below have found against the appellant and the record does not show any error requiring the reversal of the decrees.Decrees affirmed.
MR. JUSTICE McREYNOLDS took no part in the consideration and decision of this case.
- Page 400 In No. 151 the entry was made October 19, 1898, by Joe J. Hicks; commutation proof was offered June 11, 1901, and final certificate issued Page 401 July 6, 1901; on July 10, 1901, the entryman sold the land to the appellant. Patent was issued April 1, 1902.
In No. 152 the entry was made April 10, 1899, by Walter O. Allen; commutation proof was offered June 11, 1901, and final certificate issued July 8, 1901; on July 10, 1901, the entryman sold the land to the appellant. Patent was issued July 5, 1902.
In No. 154 the entry was made January 13, 1900, by Elijah Z. Boyd; commutation proof was offered May 18, 1901, and final certificate issued May 24, 1901; on June 21, 1901, the entryman sold the land to the appellant. Patent was issued February 15, 1902.
In No. 155 the entry was made May 4, 1899, by Samuel S. Akin, Jr., commutation proof was offered August 17, 1901, and final certificate issued September 18, 1901; on September 28, 1901, the entryman sold the land to the appellant. Patent was issued April 1, 1902.
In No. 156 the entry was made January 31, 1900, by Samuel E. Bryers; commutation proof was offered August 17, 1901, and final certificate issued September 18, 1901; on September 28, 1901, the entryman sold the land to the appellant. Patent was issued April 1, 1902. ↩