*1 180 OCTOBER TERM, 1885. n
Syllаbus. for the common provide defence and welfare general of the United States.
The whether the taxes question laid under authority can State be collected in this suit the depends upon question whether were But lawfully all the assessments assessed.. unlawful, were because made while the land was owned the by United States. The assessments, being unlawful, created no the land. Those upon lien.' taxes, therefore, cannot be col- even lected, since the in error plaintiffs have redeemed or pur- land from the United chased the States. Court of
Whether the Tennessee Supreme construed rightly Constitution and'Statutes of the State as provisions from taxation land United exempting belonging States, exclusive which had not been over ceded jurisdiction State, immaterial, because, is for reasons and quite stated, the authorities above this court of opinion upon nor of neither Tennessee had people legislature power, or to tax the statute, land in so constitution question, Jong , title remained as the United States. result is, that the judgment Supreme Court of Tennessee must reversed, be and the State ease remanded that court proceedings conformity further this opinion. GRAFF AM & Another v. BURGESS. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCHIT OOURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
district of Massachusetts. Argued 3, 1885. December March 1, Decided judicial (cid:127)A sale real estate not be will set aside for inadequacy price, conscience, inadequacy great unless the be so as to shock the or unless there additional circumstances its fairness. inadequacy price judicial Great at a requires only slight sale of i-eal estate circumstances of in the party unfairness conduct benefited sale, presumption raise of fraud. If inadequacy price paid purchase for the of real estate at a on an sale AM
GRAFF BURGESS.
Opiriion Court. conscience, gross execution gross he so shock the if addition inadequacy purchaser taken guilty has been of- unfairness or has advantage, undue party or if or the interested the owner .of *2 surprised, it has been for other reason then the 'will be misled sale void, regarded party injured permitted as fraudulent and the will be property redeem the sold. Looking design at the whole facts in this ease icourt finds traces of on the part plaintifE error, in errоr to her mislead defendant in to lull into security, prevent and thus redeeming property her from on execu- sold State; period tion within the by the of the and the court allowed Statute ,the allowing sustains the making redemp- action court below in a deeree tion period. of the same expiration after the of that may After hearing proofs, equity a bill he put in amended so as to in sufficiently issue matters dispute proof, put by in in but nob in issue original bill. was This a bill to redeem from in Mas- a sale real estate sachusetts an of the State under execution issued from one courts. The suit was commenced after the expiration allowed period Statutes of that State for by redeeming . from such a sale. The which facts make the case arе stated opinion in the court.
Mr. A. A. for Romney appellants.
Mr. John Lowell for appellee. ' Bradley Me. Justice delivered the of the court. opinion
This was a bill in filed on the. 10th of 1880, equity July, by Christine Peter am, Graff Sam- J.-Burgess, appellee, against Fairfield, uel M. Edward B. Newhall, others, compel Graffam deliver to her certain lands and up premises unlaw- held him and for other (as fully further relief. alleged), (cid:127) bill that had for alleged complainant many years been the in owner fee simple question, premises house and lot in the town of Middlesex Mas- Melrose, County, sachusetts, unencumbered and worth at that $10,000; least complainant as a summer generally occupied residence, and, when not herself, rented out to occupying with the tenants furniture therein ; and that her resi- general was . dence with her husband in Rhode It Providence, Island. TERM, 182' OCTOBER of the Court. Opinion was in the fall of further that alleged complainant G-raffam, some mason work done Peter one the de- that the bill for which was fendants, $23; complainant the bill on the the work objected ground paying Graffam 1879, done; badly employed January, defendants, to sue Samuel M. one Fairfield, attorney, in the Middlesex attachment, for this bill, he 1879, District and that on the 10th of Court, March, recovered -and for $28.95 judgment against damages costs:—That execution issued on this $16.15 judgment, sheriff, and the whole was sold at his office by. Malden; on the 1879; 17th and that Graffam became May, $73.10, and the sheriff him a deed purchaser gave That Edward B. 1879, a real estate Newhall, January, have a claim of agent, $30 pretending complain- samе, ant for Fairfield to sue the and an services, employed *3 issued, attachment was and. oh recovered the same judgment 10th March, of and levied 1879, execution issued and on the of in the after the complainant remaining premises interest sale to Graffam: —And that a sale was made of said interest to Newhall the 13th on of for 1879, $81.21, and deed August, ’ was himto the sheriff The by given accordingly. complainant that neither of these claims was valid and her, alleges that the knew it:—That when the levies and sales were parties made the had worth of furniture and complainant $3000 in the house and' personal unencumbered; property entirely had a welbknown in thS and a in tenant agent neighborhood, the until 1879, house June after 1, which she occupied until fall; herself the that she also had an in Mas- attorney sachusetts known to the but that no defendants; notice of such her, sale was ever communicated to attorney, agent, tenant: —That in from after the 1st of 1880, and M!ay, in to the and house complainant expended repairs $1200 Graffam the other’defendants meanwhile grounds: —That her. together the sale until conspired keep ignorance the' allowed for statutes Massachusetts year,- by redeem- had of this ing expired: pursuance —That scheme Graffam out his Newhall, who, bought subsequent
GRAFFAM v. BURGESS. had a to redeem the purchase, from the right sale to property Graffam: —That year on having expired 1880, 17th of on of June May, thereafter, Graffam, the.22d Fairfield and others, absence of during temporary com- from the house, seized their plainant entered opportunity, upon broke into the and.took house, premises, of it in possession behalf of Graffam, removed all the and other funiture personal property, including wearing apparel complainant, husband and took servant, of her corre- possession private and the sum spondence papers, still money, $170 held of all said at time of possession property filing bill: —That informed of this complainant, being proceeding, caused an to be and for immediately made, investigation first time learned of the sales made under the executions:— That she entered into Graffam to thereupon negotiation .with him and offered to all that settlement, try pay get had been such reasonable cоsts sold for, as he had he refused but that sustained; charges any arrange- ment unless she would him he claimed was which due $1100, sum,s him reason of the he expended employ large counsel and men to watch and advise him of the complainant’s so that bill states that absence, he could take possession. Graffam still had who were house, keepers possession their and that the conduct, wanton injuring intended to informed that Graffam sell the property, and was offers for it. An answer under oath was soliciting waived. On the an amendment to June, 1880, the bill 16j;h' put Graffam, filed, fraud, had carry alleging F. to one Herbert Doble for the nomi- conveyed *4 circumstances, nal stated consideration of several $5000and to it not transaction. show that a bond The deed fide bill, Avas but it wаs dated before the that charged filing it was not executed till and that the date was a afterwards, false one. Doble was made a party.
The as the answers Were answered, defendants but severally to recite them. be under is oath, required.to unnecessary went cause was into and the heard before parties proofs, the court its announced below, which, 1882, January, opinion, TERM, OCTOBER
Opinion of 'Court. that the case was one for hut not for redemption, entire annul- ment of and Of unconditional surrender proceedings prop- ; on account of fraud therefore, the bill erty dismissing against all the defendants Graffam and Doble, the court except gave leave to amend bill to the complainant de- payment of -costsand reаsonable counsel fees. fendants The complainant bill amended an offer to by accordingly, .her into adding the amount the two court recovered judgments and Newhall, interest, and for by Graffam praying per- redeem the mission to and that Graffam and Doble to account for rents and and to might required profits, re- -to her. This amendment was first convey to, and objected to, then demurred and demurrer objections being overruled, filed an answer, defendants that the setting up application to and redeem came too that no late, sufficient offer was made to entitle to redeem; that complainant defendants were entitled for &e. The $2000 expenses, complainant into court paid the defendants’ costs, a counsel fеe $215.45, allowed $150 by and court, $181.24, amount of the two and judgments same, sales under the with interest. (cid:127) decree, court made dated Thereupon, 21, April 1882, after into whereby, reciting payment money court and that the defendants, Graffam by complainant, and had certain Doble, collected rents and made certain payments, and made for and for services, charges and custody 'care of the these accounts and premises, items had n beensubmitted without directly reference co.urt master, and the court found and declared that the de- having fendants, Doble, Graffam were sufficiently paid by them all rents received for said charges expenses, as follows, then decreed that the namely, .en- titled redeem' the without further premises рayments such said defendants, Graffam and redemption; Doble, are entitled to receive the sums into court for their already paid benefit, and retain the rents received them; that the said defendants, Graffam Doble, make conveyance real estate described in the bill to the free from complainant, all encumbrances made or suffered them.” It through *5 185 vi BURGESS.
GRAFFAM of Opinion the Court. to determine the form of to a master convey- referred was also to said decree, to the receive convey- to be made ance pursuant to to the same executed, and deliver ance, complain- duly the form of The master reported and ant, report proceedings. and the defendants were ordered which was deed, a -approved, and defendants, Graffam it. this decree execute From to have Doble appealed. in the to the evidence case de- review
We do propose it and find the al- examined have principal carefully .tail. We are convinced whilst true, that, be and the bill to of legations of of the suits Graffam andNew- apprised complainant absence, her her attachment, hall instituted- against to defend that them, counsel 1879,. yet employed January, issue of executions the' was totally ignorant she of her cases, and sale in those property judgments which and of the ac- the same Graffam legal rights under a time after year’s or lapse might acquire, quired, unconscious of the she’was We are satisfied position sale. and that Graffam knew that she stood, her in Avhich to her and took so, and endeavored it, unconscious keep of her to ignorance get advantage possession inequitable his Even if it true, be power. get that the evidence below was insufficient as the court supposed, fraud, out case of that would make a sustain conspiracy' as for unconditional decree delivery á originally think it is we sufficient the de- abundantly justify prayed, below did make, which the court cree allowing debt, interest, costs, to redeem counsel upon payment In our case, defendants be judgment ought ^ees. well satisfied with this of the case. disposition It is a as well of natural law, principle justice, care, due known to consideration and are greater persons themselves, unable to than to who take care of those are fully a child team, woman, able to do so. The driver of or a seeing intellect, street, of known feeble in the bound to person harm, exercise care and to avoid them diligence greater doing n thanwould be if it was a man. grown capable obligatory dealing In with a whose without man, rights, knowledge, * TERM, .'OCTOBER know, which he due are diligence might passing away hands, time into another’s latter
by lapse may, pérhaps, *6 himself in the of the law not in justify eye (though conscience) so a and as to silence, his victim preserving wary crafty put olf his and into his own him whilst he guard bring power, would be inexcusable such perfectly taking of a advantage woman, unskilled in and unused business, to the stratagems which are sometimes resorted to by unscrupulous persons.
In of of view this standard human which just action, court a of the conduct of the equity always recognizes, defendant, am, Graff in a unenviable appears very light. n "What‘isthe scheme which has been carried out, and is now ' to be in this court? sustained sought more nor less Nothing ' than to. and get keep possession complainant’s property, worth a claim of $10,000, less than satisfy paltry $200; and this has been from her all accomplished by keeping knowledge of the device, her into until the lulling security year redemp- tion her watched passed by, and her having operations foot- and steps dogged, in her tem- clandestinely seizing possession absence. porary
It is insisted that the were all conducted accord- proceedings to the forms of law. Some of ing Yery likely. the most atrocious frauds are committed in that Indeed, way. the fraud the more greater intended, particular parties it often are to to the strictest forms proceed according law. the amount of the stake to be
Considering won, and the inflicted to be an overwhelming injury upon unsuspecting it is woman, .difficult regard equanimity proceed- of the defendant as the ings year drew to its and it had close, after' terminated. The fact is ad- virtually mitted á that he to watch kept up regular corps spies her movements whilst she was out hundreds of dollars in laying in order to find a favorable repairs moment, . when she was to take absent, her and possession home; moment, he seized such and did take and removed possession, all furniture chattels, her even to her clothing private turned into virtually streets. These ad- papers, mitted facts are themselves to show the animus and enough ' AM v: BURGESS. GRAFF of the Court. Opinion man with an honest of the defendant. No purpose, intent he have have done whatever this, may could aggravation meth- were other his claim. There payment relating or a have resorted. A he could would piano ods to which his whole claim. have satisfied mirror would probably he that, blow, before striking gave The. pretence her that her and telling by calling upon complainant warning, that she must settle the case, he had .bought premises, or its conduct, does not the defendant’s change bearing, palliate not for the' on the case. It'wаs done, purpose evidently but to his arrangement, give getting money, getting his We have to his story only better coloring proceedings. instruqtions ask were to what he said. The lawyer and to tell, of the claims which he held, her for a settlement have he would unless were that, immediately, paid *7 he This is what to it out of her take property.” probably mislead the and it was well calculated said; to (cid:127) intentions and to her and the defendant’s real position that her said, would not from what he understand, She power. did he tell not was in immediate Why peril. property that the at and sale, that the was sold sheriff’s her property if it that it was about and expired time for redeeming expiring, did He retain the whole forever % he could evidently property had to would have nоt wish it then she redeemed, only into his her or the bid. He wanted debts, get amounts few her and some He was to let on spend willing go power. all, These more hundreds of dollars were repairs. certainly of and see- made after the 17th May.' mostly, Standing this, on without go informing letting ing doing the character and of his her of her considering rights, position was itself a fraud. respective parties, called counsel, Mr. Brown, haying upon complainant’s seizure of the after the Fairfield, prem as Graffam’s attorney, testifies could be made, what to ascertain ises, arrangement full for his client and a dis $750, demanded that the latter removal of the all on account personal liability charge him for that one reason assigned demanding property, had deal that Graffam amount was spent great such large TERM, OCTOBER of his in' time and should be lib watching paid “I asked him continued, what was the erally. witness occasion He said watched the watching property. they n property.to what see Mrs. with it until was Burgess doing and that since that he had men to expired, year employed watch the when order to ascertain Mrs. property Burgess was so that take could in and He away, they possession. get that June, .said continued until the 22d of when arrangement he received a at his office’in Boston that Mrs. dispatch stating he with him Burgess then took some away; person from as a Boston, train', went to on the next Melrose keeper, assisted in one of the back house, windows opening £ went out took what I said him, property. the need of Did ? under yоur you watching stand that had before frdm the date year expired (cid:127)sale execution Peter Graifam Mrs. Burgess, Newhall, Edward B. purchaser right under the his execution, sale on was bound to come subsequent in and from redeem the sale Peter Graffam or lose his ’? debt To he which he understood that replied well; very that he advised his client, Peter Graffam, New- purchase hall title and wait sale, sheriff’s until the expiration from the sale to Newhall before the matter was stirred year and he added —I almost verbatim—4 Mr. up, give language Brown, we have trouble with this woman, and we enough never intended that she should redeem this if we could ” “ it.’ He that when went into mat repeated they help ter intended clean her out.” they' (cid:127) Fairfield these denies it is true; are so exрressions, *8 consonant with what took’ that we actually place, may suppose he did did not recollect what he precisely say. Brown that he to be taken in caused conversation down short says hand as soon as he returned to his own It office. is true that Fairfield’s declarations to be used .Graffam, ought when made him in the except course of business as Graf- fam’s in It is this of view that have attorney. point been noticed.
. The Conant, testimony complainant’s agent, signifi '
GRAFFAM v. BURGESS. of the Court. Opinion in cant in this He was Melrose when the defend connection.
ant was He went removing personal to the property. house to what was the He see matter. knew the and teamster, who was man He I loading asked the says: wagon. cause of all this trouble. I conversed with a black- mostly to be who man, in tol appeared haired he keeper charge; d a mason’s bill. I asked me was about him the amount, and him time to also asked to Mrs. and I telegraph Burgess, within see that the bill ten would minutes. He said, paid This time was between Wo,she had had nine- enough. eight an hour.” o’clock I there about at stayed night. Graham’s conduct viewed,
In in which may any light an course. is clear that he did not open, straightforward pursue n Aswe view the conceived the he evidently design proofs, for a nominal mere consid- getting, complainants property eration, so into his as to her else, of power compel getting demands he her to exorbitant choose might comply of the sale, to make. He she knew was ignorant in her. He stood which the sale saw position placed on the in her total sums of' money property expending large and of the means of unconsciousnessof his injur- proceedings, Instead of her in his hands. her which he held ing undeceiving that if she did notice, he her a not set- mere gave perfunctory to take he would have it out of tle the claims which he held a course as was such calculated property, pursued just of the real to lull instead of in any suspicions danger exciting to take which she all the time stood, possession purposing as her back for his own use as soon was turned, and to find watch favor- keeping spies proceedings, into the able slipping opportunity clandestinely premises should have her absencе. If this is not diffi- fraud, we great what fraud is. culty defining all
That the defendant embarrassments possible put sought is evinced way Newhall’s claim. device resorted to of assignment getting interest of the all the re- Newhall had purchased sale to Graffam, after the which in- maining cluded testimony given redemption. right *9 .190- TERM, 1885. OCTOBER
Opinion of the Court. counsel, Graffam’s Fairfield, indicates the subject by object n this move. “ I formed,” an he, says opinion premises that Newhall had a to redeem the Graffam title or claim, right and as I was counsel for I stated Newhall that both, he had if he desired and told him and it, Peter Graffam, right also, that one had better the other out and hold both buy ólaims. Newhall was not to do it and Graffam was, so I set- disposed tha,t tled the matter in way.” time,
Then the sale to at the Doble, under рretended circumstances it shows a made, was design place prop- It erty reach. beyond obvious, complainant’s very from the evidence, that this was a sham sale. Graffam . saw evidently that a was and the day must be reckoning coming, out of his hands. A was drawn with placed deed the nominal $5000, consideration of to N. first, Graffam, one of Peter L.t Graffam’s counsel in the That case. was abandoned. The deed was N. L. Graffam’s name and changed by erasing inserting Doble’s under which arrangement writing, writing called for and but but we promised, infer from produced, never own he was to be Doble’s held testimony that harmless. This was not effected until the 13th of change 1880, three July, days after bill was filed but the case; date of the deed is the 6th of and the date of the July (taken acknowledgment before the is the Fairfield,) 7th attorney, which, of July, course, cannot be the true date, since is testified that the ac- taken-until Doble knowledgment check, which gave is dated the 13th. Doble testifies that he was to $1600 for the the consideration in the deed $5000, being and the worth $10,000. The transaction is marked all over with evidences of fraud and simulation. at the case, whole the traces of
Looking design part of Graffam mislead the lull her into complainant, security, and thus to her from prevent are abun- redeeming property., manifest, and such must dantly as an design assumed estab- lished fact in the case:
It is to cite hardly necessary authorities on a matter the which solution of on depends such obvious application As principles' equity justice. we already perceived, v.
GRAFFAM BURGESS. conclusion, our alone .the rest do upon gross inadequacy not. ,in sale; that, of the consideration connection upon *10 conduct of the defendant in the unfair taking advantage of the' sale, of the her no complainant’s ignorance giving notice or intimation of or of his intended it, seizure intelligible after the had year passed, sums of by standing seeing expend large money upon it, even after the This, we think, year, expired. presents n case the action of the court sufficiently justify strong below, at least to the extent to which it in went the decree making from. A few awith reference to appealed legal propositions, the decisions on which is all that we deem it rest, neces- to statе. sary
It was rule formerly sales, England, chancery until confirmation of the master’s would be report, bidding a mere to advance the ten offer centum- opened upon price per 2 Pr., 924; Ch. 1st Ed. 2d Ed. Perkins, 1465*, by Daniell’s on & 1467*; Yendors 14th Ed. 114. Purchasers, Sugden Eng. But Lord Eldon much with this expressed dissatisfaction prac tice of a mere offer of an advanced opening biddings upon price, as to diminish confidence in such bidders sales, tending keep from and to diminish the amount realized. White attending, v. 14 Ves. Wilson, Williams v. Turner & 151; Attenborough, White v. Russell, 75; Ves. Damon, 30, 7 34. Lord Eldon’s views were in The Sale of Auc finally Land adopted England by tion Act, 30 and 31 1867, Yict., c. 48, so that now 7,§ bidder at a sale auction of highest land, under an order the court, he has bid a sum than, or provided to, equal higher the reserved will declared (if and аllowed price any), Iqe unless the court or or purchaser, of fraud judge, ground conduct' in the improper management sale, upon interested in application land, either person opens or orders the biddings, to be resold. 1 Sug den on Vendors & Purchasers, 14th Ed. Perkins, 114, note (a1). ' n In this Lord country Eldon’s views were at an early adopted courts, day rule has become universal, almost that a sale will not be set aside for unless inadequacy price, TERM,
192
OCTOBER
conscience,
so
as
shock the
inadequacy
great
Unless
additional,
-there be
circumstances
its fairness;
being
much the rule that
very
always prevailed
set
England
.
ting
Livingston
aside sales after the' master’s
v.
Byrne,
11
Johns.
555, 566,
report
had been
[1814]
; Williamson
confirmed
v.
Dale,
3
Johns. Ch.
290, 292,
[1818]
;
Howell
v.
Baker,
4
Johns. Ch.
118,
[1819]
;
Tiernan v.
Wilson,
6
Johns. Ch.
411,
[1822];
Duncan v.
Dodd,
2
Paige,
99,
[1830]
;
Collier v.
Whipple,
From the cases here cited wre draw the may con general shock, if clusion that, so' toas price gross inadequacy or conscience, in addition to if, gross inadequacy, pur has been chaser unfairness, or has taken any guilty any undue or if the owner of the or advantage, property, party it, interested in has been for other or reason, misled sur any then the sale will void, as fraudulent prised, regarded or the will be to redeem injured party permitted property Great sold. circumstances inadequacy only requires slight in the unfairness conduct of the benefited the sale to party by raise of fraud. presumption Baker,
In Howell v. ubi where the case was a sale by supra, a as to sheriff, and was made on grossly price, inadequate a and the was the no one stormy day,- attorney purchaser, him and was but Chancellor Kent held sheriff, present GRAFF AM v. BURGESS. and allowed debtor trustee for both as a parties,
purchaser to redeem. there a sheriff’ssale where Stellmacker,
In v. Klœpping dollars, worth two thousand dollars, fifty-two who was to a perverse, party ignorant, stupid belonging would be for such not believe sold and would told that would Chancellor amount,' be, a though paltry at a that mere Zabriskie, after' price conceding inadequacy to set not sufficient aside a sheriff’s sale is conveyance, ground added: But when such is combined gross inadequacy fraud or or other of relief in mistake, equity, ground court in this will incline to afford relief. The sale strongly is a are case They oppression complainants. ig great lose it all their norant, perverse, They stupid, poor. ill more. and are fitted to are such acquire They this court incline to should protect, perverse notwithstanding ness.” The allowed the to redeem the Chancellor and costs. property by paying purchase priсe ' v. 19 How. was a case of sale at sheriff’s Byers Surget, 303, ah at- and the very grossly inadequate price, purchaser in the case. Mr. Daniel, Justice torney opinion delivering of this after court, said: transaction, giving history “ Such is the a transaction which asks history the appellant of this court sanction and ; it seems here pertinent inquire, under what of civil under of law system what code polity, ethics, a transaction like that disclosed the record case, can be or even excused, palliated.” e The two case's cited from the Massachusetts wer Reports, sales ; on which these cases mortgagees principles *12 are rest the same.asin those of the sheriff officer. sale or other In Drinan v. Nichols, sale was made in good аpparent faith, that the knew that had the owner except mortgagee paid' interest to the owner former who had accruing given that he mortgage, would over the mort expected But this hot gagee. done, sale, made being mortgagee without notice to owner. The court, giving speaking “ through Endicott, Judge knew that the say: mortgagee plaintiff, administrator bf her husband’s estate, intending VOL. cxvn—13 '
194 OCTOBER TERM, the interests of his minor children, protect actually paid the accustomed money channel, and through, expected would be to the With paid by such Pope mortgagee. knowl- of the position a edge expectation plaintiffs, proper execution of the and a due to the power, and in- regard rights terest of the or those his estate in mortgagor having prem- ises, when after a required mortgagee, time it reasonable that became evident would not that Pope notice pay, should to the and a bare with given plaintiff, compliance terms was not sufficient.” of the This case, its power is principles, to the one now under very consideration. analogous “ in his treatise on Kerr, Mistake, Mr. Fraud and : In says if it be consideration, of so a nature as to adequacy gross conclusive in itself to and decisive amount evidence of is fraud, a transaction.” Kerr on cancelling Fraud, Am. ground Desaussure, Ed. 186. Chancellor the case of Butler v. Has the same :. kell, Desaussure, 651, 697, I con subject, says of the sider the result of the cases to that great body be, wher the court that a ever sale of has been perceives made at á such as would shock price, a inadequate correct grossly furnishes this a and in mind, inadequacy a con strong, general clusive, there be no direct presumption, though proof fraud, has been taken undue advantage ignorance, or the weakness, distress and of the vendor; and necessity on the to remove this violent imposes purchaser necessity pre the clearest evidence of the fairness of his sumption by conduct.” It is true these both observations, of Mr. Kerr Chancel- lor were made in Desaussure, reference to sales private between and do not parties, strictly sales. But apply judicial show that is a great circumstance which inadequacy price court of will equity unless it always regard suspicion, ap- evidence, the circumstances pears by case, that it is no fault of the buyer.
Some technical It however, have been raised. objections, error, said it the court to allow the amendment We redeem. see no error in this. The case as set out bill was one. either for original the sheriff’s sale annulling an unconditional or for a decreeing delivery *13 v.
GRAFFAM
195
BURGESS.
of tbe amount due. The
payment
original
for the
and for such other
former,
and further re
prayer
lief as
the court
the
to
should seem meet and
nature of the case
The
been in the
have
alternative,
might
prayer might
require.
for an unconditional
the
either
inor,
case
delivery
court
deem
the
should not
then for leave to redeеm.
proper,
been
there
an offer to
the
Had
debt
for
prayer
general
relief would
have been sufficient to
court
enable the
probably
But as
to decree a
the case made
the bill was
redemption.
of such
full to the
offer,
formal
decree',
purpose
except
least,
as
bill to that extent at
we
proofs supported
think the court did
the amendment
perfectly right
allowing
-be made. Lord
to
Re'desdale
If
says:
upon hearing
cause the
entitled to
addi
.
.
.
if the
relief,
plaintiff appears
is
wanted,
tion
alone
is
order
made for the
parties
usually,
to
with
over,
cause
stand
to‘amend the bill
liberty
by adding
and in some cases where a matter
not
parties;
has
proper
in issue
bill with
been
sufficient
the court has,
put
precision,
cause,
to amend the
upon hearing
given
plaintiff liberty
.
for the
bill
alteration.” Redes
purpose making-the necessary
326;
dale
PI.
and see
Tremolo
have been dismissed. It is true the fraud and conspiracy may have been to the extent and proved precisely aSpec't ,the bill, in which so as authorize were charged relief btit have for; we think specific originally prayed we material fraud was shown very proved, justify sufficient the court of time relieving complainant lapse her land. redeeming TERM, OCTOBER Miller, Woods, Matthews,
Dissenting Opinion Gray, : JJ. of a technical character Other are also raised, objections deem do not notice we them. Our views necessary *14 case that, are such merits of whilst has the fit to take not seen ask for and, therefore, can appeal, only an affirmance of the that no mere formal decree, yet objections in to stand of such affirmance. A decree can- ought way not be rendered for the defendants. justly
The is decree Court Circuit Affirmed. with whom conсurred Mr. Me. Justice Miller, Justice and Mr. dis Mr. Justice Woods, Justice Matthews, Gray, senting.
In a States of Union a is many great period* allowed of from twelve fifteen months to redeem real estate from sale under execution, the amount for by payment which it was and interest on that amount. In sold, all nearly these States this attaches in sales made right redemption under law. decrees as well as at chancery. judgments statute,
In such cases, Massachusetts, whether as pro- sheriff or vides that the shall be made other conveyance officer of the west- sale, after the as or, many immediately ern States, at end of the for time allowed only redemption, the title of the does until that not become absolute purchaser time has In the that casе is not denied us, before expired. received the sheriff’s deed in accordance with the appellant law of the within State, that the failed to redeem appellee allowed. time
It is of the' utmost law' where importance that the thus exer- should prevails, right strictly granted cised to the statute. in addition to the For, according sanctity which the sales, law concedes to founded on well-con- judicial sidered reasons the favor as old as the law itself, policy the debtor one after land, more to save his allowing year judg- ment and sale under execution fixed his adds have only rights, ' to his exercise the thus strict obligation right granted with its terms. accordance
In- case before us the decree who rendered the judge below statеd the bill was not conspiracy charged
AKERS v. AKERS.
Statement of Facts. nor did be act of rely fraud, proved, upon any reason he refused to set aside the sale, under a permitted, in the bill, on redeem new appellee prayer payment all costs, interest fees counsel. debt, including in the brief declines to counsel expressly rely appellee upon our Graham. In an actual fraud there part opinion of such misconduct on his no evidence afforded part in her in law or failure to ground, justify appellee equity, There did redeem the sale. is no reason she from why rendered of which her, she judgment full (cid:127) notice. no obstruction was to her exer- Certainly interposed cise of and no to induce of.redemption, right promise.made Yet, her to it. after Graffam had forego acquired complete title under which were legal judicial proceedings unimpeacha- ble, the court the case treats as if the whole matter was still *15 further time for fieri, gives redemption.
I do not deem it to enter into discussion of appropriate the evidence in but I case, dissent from the judgment of the court as results, to evil opinion discredit- leading sales, the due ing judicial exercise embarrassing just into a redemption, by right turning question discretion.- judicial Gray concur this opinion.
Justices Matthews Woods, AKERS, Executor v. AKERS. THE
ERROR TO COURT OF THE UNITED CIRCUIT STATES FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE. 1, 1886. March 8, 1886. Submitted March Decided 3, 1875, A suit cannot be a State court act oí March removed-from under the unless the requisite citizenship when the removal existed suit was be- gun, as well application made. when the for removal was JSruoe, Gibson v. applied. U. S. 561 affirmed and This cause was commenced in a State court- Tennessee in order for March, In the October an its re- following