Helfenstein v. Reed

62 F. 214 | 8th Cir. | 1894

CALDWELL, Circuit Judge,

after stating the facts as above, delivered the opinion of the court.

If the complainants and those under whom they claim ever had any right or title to the land in controversy, it was acquired by the purchase thereof at the sheriff’s sale on the 28th of July, 1858. The sheriff’s deed to the land was executed and recorded in 3863, and in that year the agreement was entered into between Helfen-stein, Gore & Co. and Mr. Poppleton to the effect that he was to prosecute their claim to the land, and, if he was successful, he was to have the land and pay iheir debt, and, if unsuccessful, he was to pay all costs and expenses and receive no fees. Acting under this agreement, Mr. Poppleton made an unsuccessful effort to establish the Helfenstein, Gore & Co. litio to the land by filing an answer and a cross bill in a suit instituted by Aaron Root against Shields, Helfenstein, Gore & Co. and others to establish a^d quiet his title to the land. In 1867 the circuit court of the United States sustained Root’s title to the land, holding the Shields title void. Root v. Shields, Woolw. 340, Fed. Cas. No. 12,038. From this decree an appeal was taken to the supreme court of the United States, which was afterwards dismissed. It is claimed that Helfenstein, Gore & Co. were not concluded by ihe decree in that case. Assuming, but not deciding, that this contention is well founded, it cannot affect the result in this case.

The complainants’ claim to tbe land had its inception in 1858., From that time down to the commencement of this suit, in 1892, Helfenstein, G-ore & Co., or their representatives, resided in St. Louis, and their attorney resided in Omaha. During all this time the complainants and their grantors and their attorney knew all about the. origin and character of the claim now set up to this land. That it was then regarded by them as of doubtful validity is shown by the arrangement entered into between Helfenstein, Gore & Co. and Mr. Poppleton for its prosecution. The effort then made to establish this title was unsuccessful, and the claim abandoned by Mr. Poppleton, who was perfectly familiar with all the facts, and who was the party to be chiefly benefited by establishing the title-For a quarter of a century the claim now set up by the complainants for this land was permitted to slumber, and appeared to have been abandoned by them and their attorney. Years ago the land was laid out into lots and blocks which have been bought and sold in good faith, and with no suspicion of the claim now set up by the complainants. Numerous persons have become the owners thereof, many of whom have placed valuable improvements on their holdings. The present owners and grantors have paid the public taxes and assessments on these lots for 35 years or more. The complainants and their attorney could not have been ignorant of these facts. The general averment is .made in th.e bill that the complainants and those under whom they claim have "not been guilty of anu-ladles in asserting their rights,” but this is merely the statement of a legal conclusion, and goes for nothing in the face of the indisputable facts in the case. If the complainants and those under whom they claim ever had any rights in this land, they are barred by their laches from asserting them now against the present owners of the property. It is unnecessary to repeat here the conditions upon which courts of equity will impute laches. The rules applicable to this class of cases have been recently stated and applied by this court in several cases. Naddo v. Bardon, 4 U. S. App. 642, 2 C. C. A. 335, 51 Fed. 493; Railroad Co. v. Sage, 4 U. S. App. 160, 1 C. C. A. 256, 49 Fed. 315; Lemoine v. Dunklin Co., 10 U. S. App. 227, 2 C. C. A. 343, 51 Fed. 487.

The facts of this case bring it clearly within the rules laid down in the cases cited, and upon the authority of those cases, and the citations therein contained, and without repeating what is there said, the decree of the circuit court dismissing the bill for want of equity is affirmed.