*1 ' v. Conrad. Oct. 187T.] Burbank Burbank Louisiana, conveyance parties reg- 1. In a lands is valid of between.the without istration, passes only consequence title. The of a failure purchaser conveyance to’place his on the of records thereby subjected losing lands situated is that to the he risk of them again they hypothecated by if sold or an his vendor to innocent third party, by ifor be seized and sold a of his lat- creditor vendor for the ter’s debts. Registry protect Act The was not intended to the United States the exercise power consequences previous its confiscation from the unrecorded by alleged By decree; acquires sales 'offender. United States for only actually pos- his life the estate at the time of the seizure he .which sessed, may appeared public possess, what he have from the records to by them; reason omission of vendees to record the act of sale' to may only estate, be, period passes by -whatever for that sale and marshal’s deed. Court of the State of Louisiana.
Error Supreme This .was a suit for of certain r.eál in New partition property Louisiana; Orleans, and was a district brought court The defendants had which was affirmed judgment, Supreme Court of the the case plaintiff here on brought writ of error. The facts in the sufficiently appear opinion the court. Fellows,
Mr. Thomas J. Durant and Q. Mr. J. A. the plain- tiff in error.
Mr. Conrad, L. L. contra. Mr. Justice Field delivered the of the court. opinion suit This is a for a of certain real partition situated New Orleans State of Louisiana. The city plain- tiff that he is the owner an undivided half of the alleges prem- ises that the defendants are the owners of the other undivided half; that from and' the nature of the it -cannot-be divided in kind. He therefore asks a conveniently partition by is, licitation; and a division of premises the proceeds.
The asserts to an title half undivided a deed States, marshal of -the executed him a sale under Court, a decree the District condemning forfeiting Conrad;
'292 the United taken proceedings it as the Conrad, Charles M.- under the Confiscation 17,1862. Act of July
The defendants assert title to the whole a sale property by *2 act,.made to them father,' their public the said by Charles by Conrad, M. before the recorder and notary-public, ex-officio in Louisiana, June, St. on the 3d of parish Mary, the lines; was then within the This parish Confederate Conrads, sons, father and were in the rebellion engaged the United States. The act of sale was not on record placed of New Orleans until The faith the city good of; in the transaction is not the parties nor'is questioned, sufficiency of the consideration. But it is that the parties,'being contended enemies hostile were' at the -territory, incompetent' public^ time to transfer toor the title to real situated accept property within the.Federal lines. if And this should not be position sustained, it is'further contended thé act of sale not that having been recorded after New Orleans until the con- city of .the demnation the District Court and its property by by sale marshal, the tbe took the title unaffected plaintiff, purchaser, transaction; words, in other that us that his by position n third the faith of the title party buying upon standing of the elder Conrad name records. public occasion, had We have in Conrad recently Waples (supra, to consider the first of these and it Avillbe questions, p. 279), here to do more than refer to our in that opinion unnecessary case. And the second a brief notice. The- question requires only record of instruments object requiring a'p.ubliG affecting title to real third with .property'is protect dealing parties ,to'< vendor, notice sale imparting any previous them purchaser hypothecation property, protect ’ In Lóuisi- subsequent attempted disposition against any It. valid, ana, the without between partiés regis conveyance tration, of a title. The failure' passes only consequence his airee on the records of the purchaser, place convey of. he, sub is situated is that property thereby to the risk of if it be sold or losing property again jected. his or if vendor to an innocent third party, hypothecated be and sold a creditor of his vendor for the latter’s séized by.- . Oct. 1877.] debts. The from vendor and the second bidder purchaser would,' case, at the sale hol'd the judicial The property. United States never stood-in the of a second position purchaser ,not sold elder Conrad. They pur- chasers at his had caused estate property. They land, was, whatever seized to be and condemned. condemnation, the decree of vested in them that estate By of his life. His estate for then their period period statute- The declares that the condemned property. “ shall become the may of as the court It was shall decree.” disposed States, therefore, the United which was sold at and conveyed decree, the marshal’s sale. The United States acquired by offender, life of for the estate only time the seizure he not what he have actually possessed; may ap- from records reason of the peared public possess, by omission his vendees to record the act of- sale to them: arid *3 estate, Avas, whatever it for that the mar- period passed by deed; shal’s sale and more less. The nothing nothing .and riot Act was intended to the United States in Registry protect the exercise of their of confiscation from the power consequences unrecorded of the sales offender. It was in previous alleged ’ the the poAver Congress confiscation the provide entire as within the without property, being enemy’s country, offender-; but, the estate the limiting in remaining so, done the court cannot the of the having operation enlarge of the statute. The had stringent provisions notice of plaintiff decree, the. character and effect of the of condemnation legal known, when he and is therefore purchased, to have presumed the that if offender no estate in the alleged possessed premises seizure, at the time of their to the States nothing passed decree, the him his by purchase. see no error in
We ruling Court Supreme Louisiana, and its judgment
Affirmed. Mr. Justice Clifford dissenting. President,
PoAver was conferred was made and it insurrection, the fifth section of the act to duty by suppress hs v. Conrad.- to cause the seizure of all estate and property persons section, .in that and to and designated use the and same apply thereof for the proceeds support Proceedings army. were in rem authorized for the- condemnation of such estates and provision should property, being proceedings conform as as be to in nearly may proceedings admiralty cases, revenue and' that if the is found to to a belong in rebellion, or who has person aid and engaged comfort given thereto, the same shall be condemned as enemies’ property, shall become the of the United States. 12 Stat.
Pursuant act, to that an information in form was filed proper cases; the several' against in these properties controversy the record shows that the were same condemned as formally forfeited to the United the decree of the appears by Court, District forth set Due condem fully transcript. nation the several the writ properties having adjudged, issued.; of venditioni sold, the same were1 exponas defendant in the first suit and the second plaintiff being titles which are purchasers parcels, respective in these suits. Formal made controversy conveyances respective purchasers, they being respectively high est bidders for the several described in their parcels respective deeds of conveyance. are
Certain sóid as aforesaid embraced parcels Conrad v. which was commenced in Circuit Waples, Court under the present against purchaser sale, marshal’s certain other parcels suit, which was embraced second commenced in the State court those under marshal’s grantee parcels case, deed, in that defendant error case; defendant Service made in appeared j *4 seizure and set of the several as the up property parcels Conrad, and of the same M. and the condemnation Charles of the said explained, parcels previously conveyance him, defendant, as the of the the marshal by kinds, fol- United States. various Interlocutory proceedings lowed, which it is not to notice. shch matters All important trial, been went to and the verdict adjusted, parties having and were' were in of the defendant. favor Exceptions judgment Oct. Burbank Conrad.. 1877.] error, and a writ of he sued out taken and plaintiff; by cause into this court. removed the title is claimed by premises
Fee-simple Conrad, father, virtue of a from'his .Charles-M. conveyance of that brother, called in the himself and jurisprudence sale, on the was 6th May, an act which executed rebellion, Nettles, recorder L. before Joseph during was Helena, the time -which at in and for the St. parish lines, the estate conveyed Confederate within Orleans, the time in the in New was situated being of the United States. army possession trial, offered that act sale in evi- During -plaintiff dence, in of his title to the premises controversy; support same, introduction of -the defendant objected sale, the act was not a but a mere six 1. That grounds: of the was or and that no delivery giving payment, made, within the inasmuch as the same was situated could be lines, and that the act was executed within Federal military thereto, States, were lines Confederate parties it the vendor and 2. That admitted being . sojourning. were, date of the act and been before and at the vendees had afterwards, in rebellion the United against engaged w^r, the act the end of the and that until and so continued lines, the within the Confederate being was passed lines, transfer was the act of within Federal inop- situated to con- evidence would tend and void. 3. That such erative entered the decree of condemnation tradict previously Court, tbe in his answer. and set defendant District up by admitted that the 4. That grantor grantees being act was at the time the enemies of the States passed, the transfer prop- complete grantor incompetent That lines. 5. within Federal the samé military being erty, not, the statute the act offered evidence copy set in evidence up admissible any right with without accompanied proof a third person, being registered proper the same had duly legally a state of were situated. That office where the properties Helena, executed in the St. then a deed war existing, ’ lines, could not be recorded within the Confederate legally *5 Burbank v. Conrad. the Orleans, which was parish date within Federal lines. military
These to evidence offered several the were sustained objections court, the and by the which the plaintiff excepted, presents principal question case. in Burbank Conrad a the Fifth Dis was Primarily, petition trict Court of the the as present city partition, plaintiff, half one undivided the petitioner, claiming part premises under the aforesaid sale. Process confiscation-proceedings defendants, served; was that the appeared pleaded 'void, .sale under those the- owner of supposed proceedings had, information, the the at the premises no filing having title, that, interest the right, Instead property. same, were the of the true and-sole owners virtue of they by father, 3, 1862, their notarial act executed June be Parkinson, fore J. G. St. Mary, recorder case, same as that involved the other presents question .where act of sale was executed appearing place was within the Confederate lines. had, and the court rendered in favor
Hearing judgment was taken the defendants petitioner. Prompt appeal Court Supreme parties again heard, and the the decree of Court reversed the Fifth Supreme Court, District in favor of the rendered defend- judgment ants, that valid have a title described in they been entered in favor of petition. Judgment having defendants, .error, sued a writ out plaintiff removed the cause into this court. are;
Errors assigned Court plaintiff Supreme erred decree Fifth District reversing Court, and in a decree in favor defendants that entering title, had a valid and that they possession put premises.
(cid:127) Sufficient to show that breach case appears claim parties title to a certain of the estate and condemned portion as forfeited the United States under the before-described claimants, wit, confiscation Two of' the- proceedings. defendant in the first suit and the second, plaintiff as set title under deeds of the up purchasers respective Oct. 1877.]
marshal to them the confis- given' purchasers at respectively hand, cation sale. the other On in the first suit and the defendants in second claim title as of their grantees *6 father, the date the re- respective conveyances bearing during but the before of the confiscation act under passage bellion* which the several were condemned as forfeited to properties the United' States for the treasonable acts of the father.- kind the-record, the in the one td
Conveyances appear the in the first suit 6, 1862, been executed plaintiff in having May Helena, the of St. before parish the recorder of that parish,, the lines, Confederate within the plaintiff alleging same was 31,1862, and defendant duly recorded.May. deny- other, answer; in his- ing allegation been having executed to the suit, 3, defendants in the 1862, second in June of St. before the recorder- of that Mary’s, parish parish, which was also lines; the Confederate nor was the con- .within ever recorded until the veyance December, 1870, 8th of Orleans, is situated. to show that.the
Argument to confiscate the proceedings in properties correct form controversy is neces- scarcely noas is made to their sary, attempt impeach Seiz- formality. ure. made properties under the controversy duly to; act of referred and the information Congress charged that seized, thé owner of the‘properties subsequently, passage act, did act as a of the Confederate member Congress, he was in armed rebellion engaged States', and that reason of the the' de- premises properties information, scribed in -the .and all the title, interest, right, and. owner, estate became and were forfeited to the United' States, and their use. ought be..condemned.to served,
Due monition issued and was which is notice to all world; and no entered, having infor- appearance or libel was taken as confessed. Proofs were taken mation and the court fully charges; .established éntered a effect, final decree to that and that ‘the be, several properties United, are, and the- condemned as same forfeited to hereby States; .Sales, were made under a venditioni subsequently exponas n issuedin due form; and the defendant in.-the first case and the '
29b v. tbe second case became tbe plaintiff of the re- purchasers in these spective two suits. properties controversy doubt, all the title of the defendant in the Beyond first and must perfect second unless plaintiff prevail, the claim set in tbe first suit and set up by the defendants in the second' sustained, can be up both - whic,h the same state facts. depend upon substantially seizure .the condemned was made on the Legal 1863, 29th of record shows that the information July, was filed on 7th of ren- following. August Judgment 1865, dered Feb. followed under thé writ of venditioni course in such regular exponas proceedings a prosecution.
Jurists of all and courts of all schools nations agree title to real law of estate governed by place is situated. existed opinion Differences subject time; one but confusion which from arose tbe application *7 inconsistent to of law such titles led courts systems ultimately and to narrow in the law all suits immovable jurists concerning Laws, to that tbe forum rei sites. Whart. Confl. property 273; Cranch, sect. United States v. 115. Crosby, 7 No estate of freehold in land can be in Massachu conveyed setts, unless it be a deed or under hand and conveyance and, tbe seal of to tbe title as it party; perfect against strangers, that deed be further should before requisite acknowledged and be in recorded of deeds proper magistrate, registry Graham, for the land lies. Clark v. 6 Wheat. county Moon, v. 9 id. 577 Kerr citation; effect are
Authorities to too numerous for nor list, to extend the is it as the- uni now necessary principle ' Suffice acknowledged. versally say, language tbe title real can be Judge Story, property only acquired, sites; lost, or tbe lex rei for which according passed, proposi Grant, tion refers to the he expressive Sir William language of real disposition estate must validity every depend the- law of the which that real estate is situated country . Hutton, 541; v. 14 Curtis Ves. Confl. Laws Story, ed.), (6th sect.
Courts
also
jurists
agree
everywhere
all.trading
299
v: Oct. 1877.]
with a
unless
war
permission'of
time
public enemy,
is interdicted when war is declared
(cid:127)sovereign,
duly recognized
196;
The
1 C. Rob.
belligerent parties.
Hoop,
Exposito
Bowden,
Ell. & Bl.
v. Waddington,
Griswold
Law, 108;
Johns.
3 Phill. Int.
v.White
(N. Y.)
Burnley,
As trading, negotiation, munication, intercourse of the between the citizens belligerent cease, must without direct countries permission sovereign 379; 1 Law, Duer, Comm. Ins. United 1 Chitty, power. States Wall. 72. Grossmayer, classes of
Six in the fifth included section persons act, which makes it the of the President to cause the duty seizure of all their estate and and use the. property, apply same, thereof, for the proceeds support army. admitted; is,
Due seizure is but-the better that it opinion intended that the mere of seizure should vest.the .act States, so seized as the seventh United section that, to secure the condemnation and sale of such provides seized, the same is after shall be in proceedings rem Court; the District and that if stituted: in it shall be found that rebellion, to a or who property belonged person engaged condemned, thereto, .had or comfort aid same shall be given as enemies’ become the of the. property, Bigelow be as the court shall may disposed decree. v Forrest, 9 Wall. 350. . arise,
Cases where the in such a .is case undoubtedly, owner, divested out of the and vested in the imme sovereign, words, offencé; as, on the commission of the diately are, 'that if a certain committed offence statute *8 shall take or that if the described offence forfeiture place; shall be forfeited. committed United States v. Cranch, 398; United 1960 States The Bags Coffee, Brig 8 Mars, 416; Annandale, id. The 2 8 Law P. & D. Rep. antine 68; Reindeer, Witherhead, 2 Robert v. 12 218 The Cliff. Mod. 5 T. R. Certain Wilkins v. Logs Mahog Despard, 2 Distilled Wall. 44. Sumn. any, Henderson’s Spirits, 14 absolute, of the statute no such conse- the words Unless condemned; as, follow until quences . n v. Conrad. Bubbank the terms of the same sovereign may by proceed against committed the act, or who it is person wrongful held title does vest in sovereign-until is condemned. Cranch, United States Grundy, 8 . 33 1865, was rendered Feb.
Judgment confiscation and from that time must be admitted that proceedings; title to States, the several was vested the United properties unless the title set the first case and up by by be the defendants the second can sustained. in. 13, 1861,
Sect. 5 of the act of July provided Presi- dent, whenever the therein contingencies should occur specified States, thereof, or or State- parts -might, by proclama- tion, section, declare that inhabitants such- or part are in insurrection, thereof a state all thereupon commercial intercourse and between the same and by the cit- thereof, and the citizens of the rest of the States, izens United unlawful, so as such shall cease be long condition hostility continue. 12 Stat. 257. shall President, to that on the 16th of
Conformably authority, in the same issued August which he year, proclamation, States, inhabitants certain' declared including the. Louisiana, in a state State insurrection States, all and that commercial intercourse United between thereof, inhabitants with the same certain exceptions noticed this not material investigation, citizens States and other parts other United is unlaw- ful, and remain unlawful until such insurrection shall will cease Id. or has suppressed. also .made the fifth
Provision
section
the said
by
act of
chattels,
that all
goods
merchandise,
wares and
(cid:127)Congress
after such
from such State
proclamation,
or section
coming,
States,’
into the other
and all
parts
proceeding
section,
water,
or
land or
with
such
shall,,together
same, or
or vehicle
vessel
conveying
conveying persons
from,
section,
such State
be forfeited. The
Reform, Wall.
war,
declared or
Public
as such
the war-
duly
recognized
imports
prohibition
making power,
sovereign
*9
Conrad,
Burbank
Oct.-1877.]
citizens,
of all commercial intercourse and corre
subjects
with citizens or
domiciled in the
spondence
persons
enemy
et al. v.
18 How.
Jecker
The
country.
Montgomery,
Rapid,
Cranch,
Bell,
548; Maclachlan,
155 Potts v.
8 T. R.
Shipp.
Law,
Wheaton,
Lawrence, 547;
Int.
The William
Attempt the first case argument, distinguish second, from the that the notarial act ground supposed the 6th of of sale óf which the under May, first title, was, month, claims on suit the 31st of that registered Orleans, ;(cid:127) land is situated where'the but it will be parish'of seen, record, reference to the that the act of sale made was to the secession of the subsequent during period when is situated was parish temporarily within Confederate lines. real
Enemy parties conveying
accepting' conveyances
circumstances,
under such
understood to do
properties,
must.be
with the
that the
if he is suc
knowledge
so
rightful' sovereign,
cessful in
district,
the State- or
regaining
sovereignty
may
transfer,
refuse to
of. such a
in a case
recognize
validity
where it
before the act of transfer was
appears
grantor,
executed, had been
of treasonable acts
guilty
against
rightful
and' that both
were at the time
sovereign,
grantor
grantees
in war
against
States
engaged
rightful government.
Huckabee,
army possession parish. Venice,2 Cotton, Wall. The Ouachita 6 id. The secession; Confederates -followed possession by Military continued to hold the from the date insurgents city there, to the time when our secession landed or a army few. before, when declared that the mayor days city city undefended, and at the of-the victors. mercy vendees, vendor and Both the rebellion engagad "open at the time United States notarial act the' of sale lines, within at the time insurgent passed lines; situated within the Federal from follows being v. the- vendor was to make sale legally incompetent vendees, and that the vendees delivery *10 to and from the legally incompetent accept delivery rebel vendor. Actual the of not could law- delivery property- made, nor the could act of sale fully supposed be lawfully situated; where the land is registered the proc- lamation of the President that all providing commercial inter- course between the and State the insurrectionary inhabitants thereof with the citizens of other States and other parts unlawful, States is and will remain unlawful until such cease, insurrection shall or 12 Stat. suppressed. has 1262.
Courts of
even-.with the
of
consent
justice,
opposite party,
will not enforce a
statute,
contract
right
violation of a
declared void
Powell,
enactment.
although
expressly
59;
Owens,
Contr.
Contr.
Bank v.
2
Comyns,
Pet.
Hall,
v.
In Chancellor individual says every of the one must nation individual the other acknowledge every nation as own his because the his It reaches enemy, enemy country. intercourse, to or removal of transfer to all property, negotia contracts, .communication, tion and to all to all locomotive inter course, to a state of utter to occlusion intercourse but one any to and but in actual combat. open hostility, any meeting v. 16 Griswold Johns. Waddington, The (N. Y.) Rapid, Cranch, 8 intercourse,
All between the and citizens says Story, subjects countries is unless sanctioned belligerent illegal, or in the exercise government, authority rights Julia, Cranch, The humanity.
If a cannot his oase without that he open showing law, courts of has broken will not assist him to -justice recover, whatever be. case Fowler equities may Pa. St. 456. Scully, it is be derived opposite theory,
Support supposed, may case from the of Kershaw v. Mass. but it is Kelsey (100 561) to what difficult see foundation there is for the if supposition, confined, be, decision as it should to matters involved Take the facts as controversy. reported,- Oct. 1877.] Massachusetts, defendant, a citizen of That as follows: .1864, one took a lease for in Mississippi February,
being of a cotton a citizen Mississippi, from plaintiff, year $10,000, rent -of situated latter plantation out of the cotton half to be cash and crop; half in paid for, deliver, to the lessee receive pay lessor agreeing value, then on the of the corn plantation. into that whether the defendant went did not It appear nor was there evidence of war after or any before began; or of either violate evade on party intent part the. the United laws, States. injure Every pre- oppose but of that appeared it. negatived; sumption sort rent, took first instalment possession defendant paid there, corn with used the provided plantation premises, it, and, $5,000, sowed amount planted supplies soldiers, was driven rebel and never away spring, early *11 returned the to plantation. afterwards but once resided had there to the con- the defendant How long prior the states that the not but of did appear; report tract leas.e a the raised of reside on to. plantation, crop continued defendant, there, the son the and delivered it to cotton it forwarded the whom, the of the same was autumn year, t.o defendant, the to who it and retained sold profits, amounting $10,000. nearly effect, facts, that court the lease of the the say,
Speaking made within the rebel were at parties both territory, time,- that the lessee it seems to should the that contemplate term; the the to there that rent was continue reside throughout the and that residue was be on spot, paid paid part land; of the the corn the of the value of out produce to be recovered action , delivered sought that-no used on the was'made agreement and. plantation; bach, or the rent sent should the cotton transported, crop that no the line between the contract or- across belligerents; to have been- across made line communication appears lease, to the delivery possession relating prem- or; ,eorfi, ises, or the rent of the one or of the payment value the other. limitations, follows, with one other which should be These observed, as furnish the to what the carefully court they key decided. None facts.as subsequently reported character to modification of the laws of war as require any expounded whose decisions reference great jurists, made; has been and the court in that case already very justly remarked, that the fact.that the cotton was for- subsequently defendant, son warded have been though may unlawful, cannot lease, affect as the lease validity does contain such 'any stipulation. case, Based as upon thus reported very clearly explained, n
the court decided that facts did not contravene the law of nations or the acts even if public government, the plan- tation was lines, within the enemies’ and that the plaintiff the case entitled to recover rent reported unpaid value corn. matters are doubtless .Many other of remark in the but the subject opinion, propositions (cid:127)stated which the embody of the court every thing justices decided in the case. ' Their decision is admissions, plain, make two —one — direct, and the other which are necessarily implied, equally That act of plain: the cotton to forwarding de .the fendant was unlawful. 2. That if the1 lease had contained agreement that the cotton should be or crop transported the rent back sent across the line between the or belligerents, if or had communication been any contract made across that lease, line relating possession delivery corn, or of the premises the rent of the one payment other, or the value contract would have agreement . void, as' of’ the law nations and the contravening public *12 acts of the States. United
Viewed of these light authorities suggestions to, referred' it is clear that the of the act of registration, unlawful, .the fith. of and title in first May n case cannot be case, from the title in second distinguished the. no made registration where- land parish situated, 8, until Dec. six nearly subsequent years the date of the decree of condemnation. does the .regis- Nor tration the first case more in law to the title give effect any in that case than second,, title in the as it the. belongs pur- 3Q5 Oct. 1877.] v.- Conrad. 31, 1862, a month subse-. have been made nearly May ports landed of the. States when United to the time the.army quent to the tem- Orleans, an end for ever and of New put city of that military city and occupation porary unlawful. States. forces of the Confederate made if it had been á during such registry,
Suppose that transaction valid as a would have been Confederate occupation, lines, still it within Confederate between Confederates sale, executed before a Confederate notarial act of clear that a lines, coul'd not be within Confederate lawfully notary time after the of New Orleans recorded in the there, and landed took States permanent United army all such a question, registra parish. Beyond possession nor as neither the and a grantor tion was unlawful nullity, the document Federal mails to send could 'use the grantees could travel there for that nor pur registration, there there to forward the same for send or an agent person, pose Nelson, 10 v. Roch Wall. Lasere Dean registration. eau, 15 id. 395. id. er 437 Montgomery v. and the immediate important consequences
One and. interdiction war is the absolute declaration of interruption intercourse, and of all commercial’ correspondence, dealing Kent, Com. the two countries. 1 (12th between subjects settled in than the is better decisions legal ed.) Nothing 'at once to all and all war an end doctrine that dealing puts of one with of the citizens belligerent communication country and that it of the other country, places those belligerent every as well as the governments, govern individual respective Kent, themselves, state of Com. in a (12th ments hostility. Wilder, Bell, 8 T. R. 43 N. Y. Potts v. Woods ed.) numerous; decisions to that-effect are Judicial very th.e nations, admit that the law of of Massachusetts Court Supreme- declared, all intercourse between citizens prohibits judicially . war, inconsistent with the state of the two belligerents in that act of the rule regard prohibits every voluntary act contract-which tends submission to or enemy, every resources, kind of or commer- to increase every trading intercourse, transmission whether cial money goods, vi. VOL. *13 n
30.6. Ot. v. Conrad. either, orders countries, between the delivery .two or or intervention of directly indirectly, third through or persons Lawrence’s Wheat. 557. partnerships. Neither nor of the act delivery the subject-matter registry made; of sale could lawfully whatever unlawfully
done awas the title as if nullity, leaving unlawful act had not been done. is made
Provision
law for the
óf a
appointment
register
in that
and it is
conveyances
made
parish,
duty
regis
ter- all acts of transfer of immovable
in that
passed
in the order in which the acts
be deliv
city
parish,
shall
ered to him
acts,
for that
and it is
purpose;
provided
otherwise,
are
before a
or
passed
'they
whether
notary-public
shall, have no effect
third
but from the
against-
persons
day
613,
being
Rev. Stat. La.
sect.
registered.
3159.
(1870), p.
the kind must
Convey'ánces.of
be-registered
public
¡es
or district where the
are
registry
situated.
prem:
136;
Se
Acts La.
ss.
Rev.
La.
(1827), p.
(1870),
Stat.
;
613;
1824,
v.
6 La.
p.
Ann.
Code
arts.
Delaney,
Dooley
67
2242, 2250,
;
1870,
2417 Code
arts. 2246 to 2266.
Sales of
under
made
private signature
immovable
do
have effect
the. creditors of the
nor
.against
parties
third
from the
such sale
persons
general only
day
law,
the actual
registered according
delivery
sold took
Art. thing
place.'
such
á
and different
Registration
another
conveyance
is not notice
district
to third
purchasers,
persons,-subsequeht
Blunt,
345;
creditors.
attaching
Pierse
14
Ann.
La.
v.
Desmarre,
v.
Mart. n.
Carraby
7
s.
Wells v.
(La.)
;
661
Baldwin,
id.
Creditors,
Smith v. His
Third with to a contract or are' persons, respect judgment, who are not defined of 1824 to include all Code persons contract; -is to a definition same parties judgment ' Oct. 18Y7.] Burbank- v. Conrad. 1870., which is more to the same the Code phrase by
given 3522, art. to these cases. Code applicable immediately *14 1110; 32, 32, 1870, art. 3556, Code n. 428. n. p. p. interest in an no
Persons not having pecuniary appeal, and. decree, are denominated third properly aggrieved by per Mart, Trudeau, sons in Morrison v. 1 respect appeal. 384; 342; v. 4 N. S. Williams id. (La.) Trepagnier, Lafitte Duncan, 622; Cross, id. Succession Hender son v. 2 Rob. (La.) to a written
Those or instrument parties agreement' which their interest is to be thing conveyed sought .in. as third affected in the properly designated persons juris- . of that Turner, 433; State. Brosnaham v. prudence La. James, 157; v. Marshall and 5 La. Wade Ann. Williams v. 125; 1824, 3522, 32; La. Code art. n. Hagan, McManus v. 537; Jewett, 6 La. 2 Rob. Kittridge Landry, (La.) the act of sale of the When 6th was first offered in May evidence, it was not certificate accompanied registry, excluded, and was heretofore upon grounds sufficiently All that-need be added of that explained. is support ruling State, is that it sustained the statute law of say fully decisions of the court by many highest has been made. out, was, reference Ruled as it already occasion, on that offered it with the plaintiff, again, certifi- annexed; excluded, and it was cate registry again that void, further was null and ground registration evidence, inadmissible in because the time, vendees at the afterwards, before in the sojourning St. parish Helena, States, and, and were enemies therefore, that of the act of sale could not be registration legally made. has been
Sufficient remarked to show that that already rul- correct, unless denied that the statute law of ing State, and the decisions of the court of the repeated highest for- furnish the State rule of decision. nearly seventy years, 1810, March, the 24th of it has been Since law that “no notarial act immovable that shall concerning effect third until the < have same shall persons have any against recorded office of the judge parish v.'Conrad. such immovable is situated.” 3 Martin’s Digest, sect. Rev. Stat. La. Rev. Stat. La. (1856) (1870) discussion of the facts is as it is Any conceded unnecessary, were, that the vendor and the vendees the date the sup sale,, act of resident lines, within Confederate' and. posed, States) were enemies of the United .they grantor that the was a member of the Confederate Congress;-and gran tees were officers in the Confederate and were engaged army* the lawful from which it fol in-rebellion.against government, lows .of the could not' be made registry lawful situated, where it is withoiit which the express sale, statute of the State law act of shall supposed !not have effect third persons. Nor is there of the- any difficulty supporting decision
(cid:127) court other assumed in wit, to that upon-the ground ruling; act but the as understood- supposed giving'in payment, .was State, thát which is to never effectual jurisprudence-of State, the title in that whether-movable-or pass property immovable, without'' It is of the essence delivery. very the dation en Court of the paiement, say Supreme should be made. Neither actually a nor a delivery that can avail' dation en an' creditor paiement attaching .delivery. Morgan, when has there been no v. Schultz La 27 . Ann. 616. Pothier that a in is an act which a says gift payment creditor, debtor a to his who is gives thing receive willing in and in of a sum of some other the'place payment money . Pothier, 365; is sect, 601, due to him. thing which by Cushing, p. Merlin, 7 verba dation en 55. Répertoire, paiement, p. in as defined in the of Louisi
Giving payment, jurisprudence ana, an act which' a debtor a to the creditor who gives thing is. is., ; to receive it in is sum which due and willing payment-of is the decision that it differs from the contract of sale ordinary this, in that the latter mere consent of the is'perfect even' before the while parties, delivery, giving payment 1824, 2625, is made Code arts. 2626. And only by delivery. . , the Code of the' 1870 same-exact Arts. words employs 2655 2656; Brooks, 222; 3 c. id. Mart. s. 269. (La.) Durnford (cid:127)Oct. 1877.] v. Conrad. of the second case is examination this behalf
Separate as it is not the act of sale unnecessary, pretended quite to the sons was where from father registered situated is until six subsequent property nearly years sale, so thát' tf the universal rule law is to prevail, pretended that the transfer immovable the law depends upon situated, it is then clear it is place sup vendees no title Watkins v. acquired premises. posed Holman, Nutt, 16 Pet. Corbett v. Mc Wall. Goon Scales, 9 id. Lawrence’s Wheat.
Wheaton the law the where real says place tenure, as to title, is situated thé 'and exclusively governs, real the descent of the-notes of the editor property, fully confirm proposition. is
War, in our not an absolute jurisprudence, confiscation but confers -the con- property- eneniy, simply right it was Hence determined that fiscation. British early land, on found at the commencement of Britain, as, could with Great not hostilities be condemned -enemy without act its legislative confiscation. authorizing .a property, States, Cranch, 110; Brown v. United Lawrence’s Wheat. however, Discussion subject, wholly unnecessary, cases before the question court which, an act of admitted, under it is confiscated Congress, gave to the District Court which entered unquestioned jurisdiction decree of condemnation. of the act of From the it became the passage Congress, duty cause the President seizure to be made and it *16 that conferred power exercised, questioned properly that is it denied all the argument nor cor- were proceedings rect, defence in the one'case only ground elainr.in that -the other named in the being person information as was not the lawful party guilty owner the time of seizure. Most of at of that claim grounds have examined, and-defence and, already it is sufficiently been, believed, have refuted. one more for fully remains Only examination, is, and that that the United States not a third within the law, and therefore that meaning party, v.
an act Ofsale never registered is situated sufficient defeat the title of a derived purchaser under the confiscation and the decree of condem- proceedings nation. no
Such a finds the words of the act of theory support is there it nor sustain other than Congress, any authority what of the State court the case now' is found opinion Conrad, here for re-examination. Burbank C. A. & L. L. kind 27 La. the- are never as Ann. Cases regarded reason, are, for words-of express authority, by review, the act for their to be of Congress providing subject reversed; nor can it-be admitted that there is modified any rule, for foundation such a as it-would render the Confiscation Act a snare and delusion. public creditors, admitted, it is Subsequent purchasers attaching is, (cid:127)would such but the find a case protection argument enemies of States in war the lawful United engaged and resident in the' defeat government, enemy territory, may treason transfers secret right government punish situated within the lines the Federal enemy property without its officers 'of the United being possible army, States to ascertain to whom such transfer made. any is no better than none all,
Unlawful for the registration that, void, reason not does operate notice to being and, so, third if then it follows that neither the United party, States nor the the United States had grantees .of any knowledge that the title of the had'been guilty party transferred previously under the laws of the rebel States.; Fraud imputed to. it is as certain as truth the pur- chasers of the frgud as innocent of as their properties grantors. intended Act, the Confiscation when it
Congress was duly executed, to owner of the means deprive guilty he could aid the and it left him no estate which he enemy, could for that other convey Wallach et al. v. or-any purpose! Riswick, Van 92 U. S. 202.
aWhere
domiciled at the
of the war in
party,
New
beginning
Orleans,
went
lines,
within the rebel
subsequently
there
in business, and while so
engaged actively
engaged purchased
*17
Oct.
311
BuRBAík
1877.]
which,
our
later
cotton
when
a
period
army
reoccupied
sold,
was seized and
and the
into the treas
city,
proceeds paid
held,
court,
it was
the unanimous decision of this
ury,
void,
of the cotton
and that it
purchase
gave
illegal
States,
no title whatever.. Mitchel v. United
puichaser
States,
21 Wall.
Desmare v. United
Human however cannot ingenuity, great, distinguish court; ruled in those cases from principle the case before the and still it insisted argument in the deed grantees from the owner title acquired guilty good States, without delivery without property legal regis- tration in the is situated. Immova- ble Law, his treatise on says property, Woolsey, International sitce, follows the lex rei lies; place and he adopts writers, rule that he promulgated by foreign wishes to who have, or exercise a to such right gain, betakes himself for that to its <md purpose himself place, subjects voluntarily to. the local law which rules where the situated. Law, Int. Woolsey, § codes, eases, decided jurists, Westlake,
Foreign says with the common law in agree exclusive claims maintaining the of the situs to the jurisdiction immovables. Differ- concerning it is ences said exist opinion, as to by Burge; among jurists decision the rule of where the contract affects as well person difference, but he there is no things; says them in among rei the lex loci all sitcein adopting questions the modi- regarding or creation fication of estates or interests in immovable property. Laws, on & For. c. Com. Col. Burge, p. to- if be Obligations convey, secundum perfected legem domicilii, but the may binding; conveyances themselves of effectual, immovable will not be unless executed ac- of the local law. cording requirements the conveyance In of immovable or of same, property, right affecting ' ' Mehaffy. Antonio San *18 law of tbe tbe follow tbe solemnities of place must grantor to it re- lies, is impossible tbe and from wbicb which to for, bis to it; with respect person
move be be subject though over domicilii, have no the can authority lex law ' has another jurisdiction, which its fixed seat in political to courts according which be tried but before the cannot the it is laws where situated. title of therefore, exist in the defects, supposed'
Two fatal the as shown by to in. controversy, the. sons the properties the That conclusive evidence: 1. subject-matter' most the never delivered to supposed grantees, sales was respective sitce, 2. That the lex loci neither rei required by ip the par- acts of sale was ever registered lawfully supposed follows, situated, which is from ish where the property shown, that the decree case either of the defects is alleged same the United of condemnation vested the title 'to (cid:127) States. is court, and it clear < rules to the before those y Apply affirmed, and that be first case should judgment (cid:127) be reversed. in the second case should judgment Mehaffy. San Antonio “ legislature Texas, act An entitled Act twelfth section 1. The Company,” incorporate which Railroad authorizes -the the San Antonio company, stock of said city' Antonio to subscribe for the issue of San same, repugnant provision pay is not of the State for the bonds “ legislature every 1845,requiring that law enacted Constitution expressed object, title.” and that shall contain but one shall Antonio, city .1852, issued of San March securities 2. Certain bonds or city electors is authorized a vote that “this debt recité provisions Antonio, incorpo- with an accordance act to taken in San Company, approved Sept. Railroad and Mexican Gulf rate San Antonio verity Held, denying city estopped 5,1850,” from &c. recital, bona hands are valid in the and that the bonds or securities fide maturity. purchaser for value before pt-incipal company were to that fact securities delivered The expressly immaterial, because the act under were'issued sealed “ duty making subscription charged with issue authorized those city.”- pledge bearing interest, the faith of the or otherwise bonds