60 W. Va. 121 | W. Va. | 1906
Lead Opinion
Henry J. Fisher died in 1883, leaving a will devising and bequeathing his whole estate, real, personal and mixed, wherever situated, to Charles E. Hogg and L. F. Campbell in trust for the uses and purposes named in the will,, providing therein for a small support for his son Henry J. Fisher who was his only heir-at-law. The 3rd clause of his will is as follows:
“Third. And in case my said son shall die without lawful issue, I desire that his widow be comfortably supported out of my estate, during widowhood, and the residue of my estate, that is not required for a comfortable support of my son’s widow, during her widowhood as aforesaid, I desire to be disposed of as follows: One-fourth thereof to Mrs. Henrietta Fowler, my natural daughter; one-fourth thereof to the lawful children of Nicholas Perkins, by his present wife; one-fourth thereof to the children of John Heisner, deceased, of Gallipolis, Ohio; and the remaining one-fourth to the children of my sister, Sophia Choen.” He added to the will a codicil on the 25th of January, 1883, as follows: “I hereby revoke the bequests made by me to the children of John Heis-ner, deceased, of Gallipolis, Ohio, and also the bequests made
In April, 1884, Henry J, Fisher, Jr., instituted a suit in chancery in the United States Circuit Court for the District of West Virginia, under the title of Henry J. Fisher, Jr. vs. ElizaS. Fisher, widow of Henry J. Fisher, Sr., deceased, Charles E. Hogg, L. F. Campbell, executors of the will and trustees of the estate of the testator, Henrietta Blackburn, Nicholas Perkins and Susan Perkins, his wife, Elma Perkins, Shelby Perkins, Lila Perkins, Mary Perkins, and Eugene-Perkins, for the purpose of having the will of his father declared null and void for the reason as alleged by him that it created a perpetuity. Suph proceedings were had in said cause that on the'21st day of January, 1885, a decree was. rendered therein, setting aside and holding for naught the said will, and directing the said Charles E, Hogg and L. F. Campbell to convey by proper deed of conveyance all the real ■ estate of which the testator died seized to the plaintiff Henry J. Fisher, and that they transfer and deliver to him all the other property, and inhibiting and restraining said Hogg and Campbell from exercising any office or power or doing any act as such trustees except in making and conveying and transferring the said real estate and other property and decreed that the said Hogg and Campbell, executors of the said last will and testament, pay the costs of the suit out of the goods and chattels in their hands unadministered. On the 10th day of February, 1885, the said trustees under and by virtue of said decree conveyed to the said Henry J. Fisher, by deed of that date, all the real estate which came to them by virtue of the said will. On the 24th day of July, 1885, Henry J. Fisher and his wife, Maria P. Fisher, conveyed to Lewis. Pfalzgraff a tract of 300 acres of land in Wood county, part of the land of which his father had died seized, and which was conveyed to said Henry J. Fisher by said trustees. Said Pfalzgraff at once took possession of said tract of land under his purchase from Fisher and wife and continued in the possession thereof ever after. On the 11th day of June, 1890, more than five years after the final decree had been entered annulling and setting aside the will of the senior Fisher, a bill of review was filed by Elma Perkins, Shelby Perkins,. Lila Perkins, Mary Perkins, and Eugene Perkins, the last.
This decree was appealed from to the United States Circuit. Court of Appeals by the defendant Lewis Pfalzgraff and the Ohio Eiver Kailroad Company and Maria P. Fisher, who had filed a petition in the cause, which court of appeals on the 8th day of May, 1902, rendered its decision and ordered ‘ ‘that so much of the petition of Mrs. Maria P. Fisher as re
At the July Rules, 1889, Elma Perkins and others, as owners of the one undivided fourth in said lands .filed their bill in equity in the circuit court of Wood county against Lewis Pfalzgraff, C. E. Hogg and L. F. Campbell, executors and trustees under the will of the senior Fisher, Maria P. Fisher •and Henrietta Blackburn as defendants, prayingfor partition ■of the said tract of 300 acres of land giving to plantiffs one-fourth, to the defendant Henrietta Blackburn one-fourth, or with the consent of Blackburn that one-half of said land be • set off to plaintiffs and Blackburn jointly, and the remaining half to Pfalzgraff; and praying that Pfalzgraff be required to account for and pay to them one-fourth part of all the rents and profits realized by him, and that the account for the rent, profits and income from said property be fully settled and adjusted so as to give to plaintiffs one-fourth of the net proceeds and to Blackburn one-fourth. Pfalzgraff filed his answer denying that plaintiffs and Blackburn were joint owners in fee simple with himself in said tract of land, and alleging the final decree entered of January 21st, 1885, set aside the said will, and that by deed of July 14th, 1885, upon ■the conveyance of said tract to him by Fisher and wife he immediately took possession under said deed and had had undisputed, continuous, adverse possession thereof to the present time claiming title adverse to the world under said deed, and had paid all taxes charged and chargeable thereon - since 1885 and that the land had not been entered on the land books •of Wood county or elsewhere in the name of any other person or persons, or in the name of the estate of Henry J. Fisher Sr. since or anyone for him since the year 1885, and that no one had paid any taxes thereon since that year except himself; that more than five years after said final decree the Perkinses, defendants in the original suit, filed their bill of review in said cause in the Hnited States Circuit Court making Maria P. Fisher and Henrietta Blackburn and respondent among others parties defendant thereto praying the reversal of the said decree; averring that he was an innocent purchaser of said land for value, that he had no actual notice and
By the will of Henry J. Fisher, Sr., Chas. E. Hogg and L. F. Campbell were made executors of the will, and trustees of all the estate of the testate decedent; that after the final decree of January 21st, 1885, rendered by the Circuit Court of the United States and in pursuance thereof the said trustees on the 10th day of February, 1885, conveyed by deed duly executed all the real estate which came to their hands as such trustees by virtue of the said will, to the plaintiff in said original suit to set aside the will. In this act on the part of the trustees in executing the mandate of the decree notice was given that it was not their purpose to appeal from said decree but that they regarded the same as final and binding-on all parties thereto. These trustees represented all parties in interest and were the proper parties to appeal in case they deemed themselves or those whom they represented aggrieved by the decree; they not only failed to appeal or file a bill of review but accepted and acquiesced in the decree as final and declared their purpose not to contest the validity of the decree by carrying out its provisions as far as it required action on their part by conveying to the plaintiff Fisher all the real estate over which, by the will, they were given control.
It would seem that these late decisions of our own Court would be sufficient on this question of lis pendens without going farther. In 3 Cyc. 462, it is said: “Rights acquired bona fide by a third person under a judgment, order or decree rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction are not affected by the subsequent setting aside thereof;” citing as authority therefor cases from Florida, Illinois, Louisiana, New Hampshire, New York and United States Supreme Court. See also for much authority on this point 3 Cent. Dig., sec. 4631. In Clayton v. Anthony, 15 Grat. 518, Judge Lee, in delivering the opinion of the Court, at page 526, referring to the case of Creasy v. Anthony, heard with the case first mentioned, says: “A bill of review forms no part of the proceedings in the original cause, 'it is allowed only after the suit is completely ended.” Judge Cabell in Laidley v. Merrifield, 7 Leigh 346, at page 354, says: “The decree being final, the bill of review is not regarded as a part of the cause of which the decree was rendered, but as a new suit having for its object the correction of the decree in the former suit. ” In Keck v. Allender, 37 W. Va. 201, at page 210, it is said : “A bill of review forms no part of the proceedings in the original cause but is offered after the suit is completely ended.” In American Bible Society v. Hollister, 1 Jones Eq. 10, Judge Pearson, at page 13, says: “To call a bill of review an incident of a former suit requires some latitude of expression.” Ellzey v. Lane, 2 Hen. & Mun. 589: “A bill of review can not be brought until the decree sought to be reviewed and reversed is final and the parties out of the court.”
It is contended by appellees that the decree of the United States Circuit Court of February 20th, 1891, is final, adjusting the rights of the plaintiffs in the bill of review and Henrietta Blackburn and that the same was binding on defendant Pfalzgraff. When Pfalzgraff and other defendants filed their answers to the amended bill of review asserting their rights as against • the allegations of the said bill, plaintiffs moved to strike out said answers, which the court did on the 27 th of June, 1899, being of opinion that there might be a question as to whether the court had jurisdiction of the matters and things alleged in said several answers and without passing upon the question of such jurisdiction, the court was of opinion to relegate said matters in difference to, the state courts which had jurisdiction thereof “and without prejudice to the rights of the several respondents, it is ordered that the said answers be stricken out, but nothing in this order, nor in the orders formerly entered herein shall prejudice the rights of the respondents in said several answers as to any relief they may seek in said state courts with reference to title acquired subsequent to the title vested and conferred by the will of Henry J. Fisher, Sr., or as to other interests acquired since the institution of the original suit in this court. ” The decree of February 20th, 1897, also reserved to any of the parties in interest the right to litigate any question of title or ownership that might have arisen pending the suit. Thus leaving open the questions to be litigated between the
For the reasons herein stated the decree of the circuit court of Wood county must be reversed and plaintiffs’ bill dismissed.
Reversed.
Concurrence Opinion
(concurring):
It will not do to say that Pfalzgraff is a pendente lite purchaser. He bought after decree and before bill of review. When he purchased there had been final decree, and not yet a bill of review. “During the interval between final judgment and commencement of proceedings in error, there is no suit pending, and a purchaser in good faith does not take title pendente lite.” Cheever v. Minton, 13 Am. St. R. 258. The bill of review must have its own notice. It does not relate back. 2 Cyc. 510; Bennett on Lis Pendens, sections 40, 70; 21 Am. & Eng. Ency. L. (2 Ed.), 618; Barton’s Chy. Prac.
PFALZGRAFF A PURCHASER FOR VALUE.
If Pfalzgraff’s title be considered as emanating from or resting on the decree setting aside the will of the elder Fisher, and I think it is to be so considered, then I hold that his title cannot be affected, by reversal of that decree for another view, that is, because he has the defence of a Iona fide purchaser. With that decree setting aside the will standing, Fisher’s title, coming from the elder Fisher, would be good; with that decree reversed, it would not be good. It stands on that decree. As a purchaser for valuable consideration without notice, it is old equity law that equity will not do anything against him, because two persons equally unfortunate, equally meritorious, are praying to it, and its hand touches neither, but it leaves them as they came, interfering not at all. A purchaser under a decree afterwards reversed, if he is not a party, is protected from reversal. Code, chapter 132, section 8. Why, on this same principle, should not a purchaser from him Be protected ? A bona fide purchaser from a fraudulent grantee has always been protected, though the title acquired by such purchaser was tainted with fraud, and a bad title in the hands of its first owner. I assert that the true rule is, that one who purchases from a party who held under a decrée afterwards reversed, is not affected by such reversal, if he is a complete purchaser. 3 Cyc. 462; Bank v. Bank, 6 Peters 8; Galpin v. Page, 18 Wall p. 375; Rorer on Jud. Sales, section 1142; McJilton v. Love, 13 Ill. 486, 54 Am. Dec. 449; Read v. Howe, 39 Iowa 554, pt. 7 and p. 561; Lovett v. German Church, 28 Am. Dec. 37; Dater v. Troy, 2 Hill 629; Volger v. Montgomery, 54 Mo. 577; Davis v. Watson, 54 Miss. 679; Benjamin v. Guiteau, 47 Ill. 433. Such protection to one purchasing from a party to the suit is not only in cases where there is a judicial sale, but it is also where it is the decree that gives title to the party who, before its reversal, conveys to a bona fide pur
We can safely say with Judges Lee and English in Claytor v. Anthony, 15 Grat. p. 526, and Keck v. Allender, 37 W. Va. 210, that “a bill of review forms no part of the proceedings in the original case.” “It is a new suit,” said Judge Cabell in Laidley v. Morrifield, 7 Leigh 353. This is because the old suit had ended by final decree. Lynch v. Andrews, 25 W. Va. 571, does not show Pfalzgraff a pendente lite purchaser. The decrees were not final, as the court held them expressly to be interlocutory, as appears in Camden v. Haymond, 9 W. Va. 680 and 22 W. Va. 184, 188.
pealzgraef’s title good bt decree.
Another matter. The decree of the circuit court of appeals is said to settle that the plaintiffs have right to half of Pfalz-graff’s land, and that his deed from Henry J. Fisher gives him but half. The petition of Mrs. Fisher sought a support out of this and other lands on the theory that the elder Fisher’s will charged the land with her support. The decree charged the land with her support. It also reserved the right to the plaintiffs to ask partition in the state courts, there being some lands, besides that sold to Pfalz-graff, to which those claiming under the will would, as between themselves, have right to partition. This did not adjudicate right to partition, and surely did not hold that those claiming under the will had right to ■ partition of the Pfalz-graff tract. The decree only reserved any right to partition that might exist. Moreover, the decree contained a saving clause in these words: “And leave is likewise reserved to any of the parties in interest to litigate any question of title or ownership that may have arisen pending the suit.” That clause saved Pfalzgraff from the effect of that decree, save only the charge made by it on the land for Mrs. Fisher’s support. He could contest “title and ownership” unaffected by the decree. On appeal that decree was reversed so far as it charged Pfalzgraff’s land for Mrs. Fisher, and dismissed her petition, leaving the balance of the decree still firm, including that saving clause. Thus that decree by no means takes Pfalzgraff’s title from him. But to the contrary, does not that decree hold Pfalzgraff’s title superior to the rights of those claiming under the will? If it is not res judicata to-establish Pfalzgraff’s title, the principle of the decision of
Another matter. Limitation. I think Pfalzgraff is protected by the statute of limitations. We cannot say that he is denied this defence of Henry. J. Fisher, his grantor, having.