89 W. Va. 384 | W. Va. | 1921
Tbe object of the present bill was to have removed as a cloud upon plaintiffs’ alleged title to two tracts, comprising one hundred and thirty-eight (138) acres of land in Putnam County, alleged to have been acquired by them in the year 1887, by deeds from Margaret Billups, a certain recorded instrument, commonly known as a disclaimer, the pertinent-parts of which are as follows:
“Whereas certain actions of ejectment are now pending in the District Court of the United States for the District of West Virginia in favor of Henry McParlan and others against Lewis Adkins and others, John P.*386 Yelverton and others against Jeremiah Witcher and others, Gustavus A. Sacchi against James A. Holley and others, Gustavus A. Sacchi against J. M. Reece and others and Gustavus A. Sacchi against A. J. Barrett and others; for the recovery of a certain tract of land heretofore conveyed by Henry McParlan and others, Trustees of the Guyandotte Land Company, to Gustavus A. Sacchi by deed bearing date on the 27th day of June 1865 and recorded in the office of the Recorder of Cabell County in Book A (new series) page 104; and
“Whereas Charles M. & Dortha D. S. Billups are in possession of and claiming title to a portion of said land so sought to be recovered and are desirous of settling any and all conflicting claims to lands so occupied and claimed by them.
“Now, Therefore the said Charles & Dortha . in consideration of the premises and of being released from all litigation in relation to the land hereinafter described and from liability for costs in relation to lands sought to be recovered as aforesaid, do hereby disclaim all right, title claim demand or interest in and to all and any land set out and described in said deed and said declarations in said actions of ejectment except those pieces or parcels of land situate, lying and being in the county of Putnam and State of West Virginia on Big Creek of Trace Pork of Mud and being part of a survey of 200 acres made for Andrew Barrett on the 10th day of May 1838 being 55y2 acres situate on the waters of Big Creek of Trace Pork of Mud in Putnam County, West Va., beginning at an ash, (etc.).
“Also that other piece or parcel of land adjoining the above tract beginning at a white oak and two beeches a corner to said survey of 200 acres, thence N. 34° E. 48 poles crossing the creek to a gum and red oak, thence a straight line 159 poles to a beech, thence a south course crossing the creek 35 poles to a beech and dogwood bush, thence a straight line and south east direction to the beginning, containing 35 acres more or less.
*387 “But tbe ,said Charles and Dortha D. S. Billups hereby disclaim all title to Or interest in all coal (except so much as shall be required for domestic purposes) and iron ore, hydro carbon oils, salt brine, natural gas and all other minerals in, upon or under the said tract of land herein excepted with the exclusive right to the said plaintiffs and those claiming under them for rights of way for tram, rail,and wagon roads through said land so excepted and to dig for and mine coal, iron ore, bore for oil or natural gas and the necessary conveniences on said land for storing oil and coal and the transmission of the same' by the best and most convenient means to market.
“And the said Charles and Dortha . further agree that the plaintiffs in either of said actions may take judgment against them in ejectment for the interests by them herein disclaimed and to that end they empower any attorney of said court to appear for them and consent that such judgment be entered and that this disclaimer be filed as a part of the record in such cause.
“Given under our hands and seals this 22nd day of May, 1891.
“C. M. Billups (Seal)
“Dorthy Billups (Seal) ”
This paper purports to have been acknowledged by both the makers, before Alexander Eggleton, Notary Public, August 8, 1891, and was recorded in the clerk’s office of the county court of Putnam County, March 21, 1893.
Two main grounds are alleged and relied on as the bases for the relief prayed for and decreed to plaintiffs by the decree of July 30, 1920, appealed from. First, that the instrument in question is a forgery as to Dortha, or Dortha D. S. Billups, and was never executed' or acknowledged by her in any form, or by any one with her authority: Second, that said instrument is not a deed, nor a deed of bargain and sale, operating to pass any title to the minerals and mineral rights described therein.
On the first of these questions, that of the alleged forgery
We next turn to the oral evidence of the witnesses relied on to support the decree: We have first the testimony of C. M. Billups. He admits he signed and acknowledged the contract on his part before Eggleton, Notary. He says he did this after being threatened with prosecution for cutting timber belonging to plaintiffs in the ejectment suit over the
The testimony of two other witnesses, namely, Victoria Cot-trell, a daughter of Mr. and Mrs. Billups, and W. M. Ash. worth, at the date of the instrument in the employ of E. L. Butterick, who appears to have been attorney for the plaintiffs in the ejectment suits, is relied on. The pertinent part of Mrs. Cottrell’s testimony is that she remembers that about
The strongest evidence perhaps in support of plaintiff’s case is that of Ashworth, representing Butterick, attorney for plaintiffs in the ejectment suits. He acknowledges that Mrs. Billups objected, and refused to sign the instrument; said she never would. But on cross-exaniination Ashworth says his understanding is that there was only one paper to be executed at the time he was present, but would not be positive about that. And he says that if Mrs. . Billups on another day, after her husband had acknowledged it, also acknowledged it, he knows nothing about it. And when shown another disclaimer deed like the one involved here
Are these facts and circumstances and the testimony of these witnesses sufficient to overthrow and brand as a forgery a solemn deed or instrument, twenty-five years after it purports to have been executed before a public officer? If so, there is little safety in the titles to land. The treachery of memories, and the cupidity and averice of former owners and claimants of the land would be sufficient to overthrow deeds and other instruments. The rule of law laid down in this state, as elsewhere, is that in order to impeach the certificate of acknowledgment of a duly authorized officer, the proof must be clear, cogent, satisfactory and convincing beyond reasonable doubt or controversy. Pickens v. Knisely, 29 W. Va. 1; Swiger v. Swiger, 58 W. Va. 119; Hill v. Horse Creek Coal Land Co., 70 W. Va. 221; Mankin v. Davis, 82 W. Va. 757, 763. It was decided in the Swiger case that the evidence of the grantor denying the execution of the deed, and the opinion of the experts that the signature thereto was. not that of the grantor, was not sufficient to overthrow the’ verity of the certificate of acknowledgment. And in Hill v. Horse Creek Coal Land Co., supra, it was decided that the denial of the execution of a deed and acknowledgment thereof, unaided otherwise than by the fact that the signature was by mark,-and the party could write, and denied having signed any paper, was not sufficient to overcome a certificate of acknowledgment thirty years old, and pronounced genuine by the officer who certified the acknowledgment. See also, Houlihan v. Morrissey, (Ill.); Ann. Cas. 1917A, 364 and note; People’s Gas Co. v. Fletcher, (Kan.), 41 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1161 and note; 1 C. J. p. 896, and note 60.
The remaining question is as to the adequacy of the instru
The consideration for this disclaimer was, as the instrument recites on its face, the pendency of the suits, the fact that the makers were in possession of the lands sued for, their desire to have settled any and all conflicting claims to the lands so occupied by them, and to be relieved from all litigation in relation thereto, and from liability for costs. Certainly these were sufficient considerations for the deed or instrument of disclaimer. It is conceded that if this instrument was genuine, and had been filed in the ejectment suits, and judgment taken in favor of the plaintiffs therein, such judgment would have worked a complete estoppel as to claimants or any one holding under them; but the contention of counsel is that this was not done; that no judgment was taken; and the paper not being in form a deed, and containing no words of bargain or sale, or of grant or other operative words, there is no manifest intent in the instrument to pass any title.
It is contended, however, that there are no grantees named in the instrument, and that for this reason the instrument lacks an essential element in order to pass title. But this argument was met and decided adversely to the contention of counsel in the two federal cases cited. It is true, the persons to whom the disclaimers were made are not specifically named in that part of the instrument, but the plaintiffs in the
The argument is also advanced that the instrument is exe-cutory only, and not having been carried into judgment, as the plaintiffs were authorized to do, the title never passed. That was the right of plaintiffs in the ejectment suits; but as to the defendants nothing remained to be done on their part. As to them the instrument was fully executed. And being executed under seal, ‘and delivered, the grantors were thereby forever estopped by the deed from asserting any right, title or interest in the several interests in the land so granted or quitclaimed. One may be estopped to deny the truth of facts agreed upon and settled by force of entering into the contract, and arising from acts done under or in performance thereof. 21 Corpus Juris, 1110; Headley v. Hoopengarner, 60 W. Va. 626. In Dickerson v. Colgrove, 100 U. S. 578, an owner of land was held to be estopped as against a purchaser by a letter which he wrote to the vendor and which was shown to the purchaser. And in Summerfield v. White, 54 W. Va. 311, it was distinctly held that one claiming under another so bound by an estoppel is himself bound thereby. In this case the plaintiffs are bound thereby, if not by actual knowledge, by force of the recorded instrument. Section 11, chapter 72 of the Code provides: “And all deeds heretofore made, whether by officers, agents, com
Our conclusion, therefore, is to reverse the decree, and to dismiss plaintiffs’ bill and amended and supplemental bills, and that appellant recover of the plaintiffs its costs here incurred and in the court below, and it will be so ordered.
Reversed, and bills dismissed.