Dolton v. Cain/Opinion of the Court

by David Davis

United States Supreme Court

81 U.S. 472

Dolton  v.  Cain

The limitation laws of Illinois relied on by the defendant, in substance, declare that whoever has resided on a tract of land for a period of seven successive years prior to the commencement of an action of ejectment, having a connected title in law or equity deducible of record from the State or the United States, can plead the possession in bar of the suit.

It is objected that the entire title of the defendant is not evidenced by acts of record, but this is not necessary. If the source or foundation of the title is of record it is available to every person claiming a legal or equitable interest under it who can connect himself with it by such evidence as applies to the nature of the right set up. ^[1]

Is the right set up by Cain, then, within the purview of the statute?

It is conceded to be, if the bond was executed under a valid power of attorney, coupled with full payment of the purchase-money, and the obligor had the legal title to the land. This concession was necessary, because it is too plain for controversy that a union of these elements would constitute a complete equitable title, which a court of chancery, on the proper application, would perfect into a legal title. But there are other principles by which an equitable title can be tested, and, in their application to this case, relieve it of all difficulty. If a party has done all that could reasonably be expected of him to perform his part of the agreement, it will be considered, in equity, as having been done. Cain is within this condition. He purchased the land from Cockle, paid him all he agreed to pay, except the sum of $66, and this he was ready and willing to pay, but Cockle would not receive it, on the plea that it was rumored his principal was dead. Was not this offer equivalent to payment? What more, under the circumstances of this case, would a court of equity require? It would be a harsh rule to say that the purchaser should lose his land because he did not institute inquiry, in France, to ascertain whether the rumor of Jacquemart's death was well founded or not. There was no revocation of the power, and Cockle was the property person to receive the money, unless Jacquemart were dead; and there is nothing in the record to show that Cain ever received any information on the subject, except what was contained in the reply of Cockle when he offered to pay him the money. Naturally a man in the predicament of Cain would rest in security, until advised by Cockle that he could safely pay the money to him, or until some one having authority called upon him for payment. This was never done; and, after sixteen years' residence on the land, he is called upon to surrender it because he did not employ unusual means to ascertain the proper parties to whom the small balance due on the land should be paid. If there were no limitation law in Illinois applicable to this this case, the action of ejectment would, on proper application, have been enjoined until Cain could, through a court of equity, have perfected his title so as to make it available as a legal defence in a court of law. If, then, Cain had such a title as a court of equity would recognize and convert, by its decree, into a legal title, it must be considered a title in equity within the meaning of the statute. Indeed, it is difficult to conceive what the law does mean by a title in equity if this be not one. It must be something less than a legal title, else these words in the statute can have no effect. The law was designed to protect both kinds of title alike, and, unless equal influence is extended to both, there is a practical repeal of a portion of the statute. In no proper sense can it be said that Cain broke his agreement. It is true he did not formally tender the money to Cockle, but this would have been a useless act, as Cockle told him, on his application to pay, that he could not receive the money. Besides, he had good right to suppose, from what had previously occurred, that the offer to pay Cockle was as valid as the offer to pay Jacquemart.

Why, then, has not Cain, having shown a record foundation, brought himself within the scope of the statute?

It is urged, as an additional reason against this, that Jacquemart did not own the legal title, because one of the mesne conveyances made in 1823 was to Thiriat in trust for Jacquemart. This is true, but Thiriat died in 1845, and Jacquemart, the beneficial owner of the land, assumed to have the right to sell it in July, 1848, when he executed his letter of attorney to Tillon and Cutting, with power of substitution. Nothing is heard from the heirs of Thiriat for a period of nineteen years from the death of their ancestor, when, in 1864, they convey, as do also the heirs of Jacquemart, the tract of land in controversy to the plaintiff. After such a lapse of time, in the absence of any proof on the subject, it is difficult to resist the conclusion, that some undue influence must have been used to procure these conveyances; but, be this as it may, the title of Cain is not less an equitable one on account of them, and, if so, the statute will not allow his possession, rightfully obtained and continued the requisite length of time, to be disturbed. Without discussing the effect of the deed of Thiriat's heirs, in its application to this case, it is enough to say that a court of equity, looking through forms to the substance of things, would find a way to protect Cain's purchase.

It is urged, as an additional reason why this defence cannot prevail, that the bond is in the name of Jacquemart alone, while the power was to convey the joint property of husband and wife. There would be some force in this position, if the original deed to Thiriat had been in trust for the wife as well as the husband; but, as this was not the case, the joinder of the wife could only have been intended to alienate any supposed right of dower in the event that she survived her husband. She had no present title to the land, either legal or equitable; and, although Cockle was empowered to use her name, as well as her husband's, in any instrument of sale he might execute, the failure to do so cannot, in any event, operate to invalidate the bond for a deed which he gave to Cain.

It is hardly necessary to notice the objection, that Jacquemart's name is incorrectly given in the contract of sale. Cockle testifies that this was a mistake, and it is the business of a court of equity to see that Cain is not harmed by it.

On the whole case we are of the opinion that the defendant is within the protection of the limitation laws of Illinois, which he invoked for his defence, and which he had a right to do for that purpose, although the title used to accomplish this object could not be employed by a plaintiff in an action of ejectment, who can only recover when he has the paramount legal title.

In conclusion, it is proper to state that we have examined the decisions of the Supreme Court of Illinois, to which we have been referred as affecting the question at issue, and do not find anything decided which militates against the views we have presented.

JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.

Notes

1. Collins v. Smith, 18 Illinois, 163; Poage's Heirs v. Chinn's Heirs, 4 Dana, 4.