The declaration in ejectment was dated on 22 May, 1831, and the
judgment was rendered on 14 January, 1832. The plaintiff in
ejectment counted on a demise made by Arnos Binney on the 1st day
of January, 1828. His title, as shown in the abstract, commenced on
17 May, 1828, which is subsequent to the demise on which the
plaintiff counted. By the court: "Though, the demise is a fiction,
the plaintiff must count on one which, if real, would support his
action."
The counsel for the defendants insisted that if the cause could
not be decided on its supposed real merits, it ought to be remanded
to the circuit court for the purpose of receiving such
modifications as will bring before this Court those questions of
law on which the rights of the parties depend. By the Court:
"Where error exists in the proceedings of the circuit court
which will justify a reversal of its judgment, this Court may send
back the cause, with such instructions as the justice of the case
may require. But if in point of law the judgment ought to be
affirmed, it is the duty of this Court to affirm it. This Court
cannot with propriety reverse a decision which conforms to laws and
remand a cause for further proceedings."
An action of ejectment was commenced in the circuit court by
agreement, on 14 January, 1832. The declaration counted on a demise
from the lessor of the plaintiff dated 1 January, 1828, for the
term of fifteen years. The declaration was afterwards amended by
adding,
"a demise from John K. Smith and a demise from the heirs of Amos
Cloud (their names to be left in blank or considered as properly
instituted in the record) and another from John Way."
The following agreement, signed by the counsel for the
plaintiff, was also filed in the circuit court.
"The plaintiff's title depends on the title papers herewith
shown to the court, the due authentication of which is admitted,
viz., the patents for Amsterdam and White Haven and the
several mesne conveyances, decrees, &c., from the patentees
down to the plaintiffs, and it is admitted that the plaintiff's
lessor, J. K. Smith, was in possession in June, 1812, when the
condemnation hereinafter mentioned was made of the
Page 33 U. S. 215
land comprised within said condemnation, and that it is a part
of the said two tracts of land."
"It is admitted that the Potomac Company, in the year 1793,
condemned certain lands, as appears by their said inquisition and
condemnation and plot hereto annexed, for their canal and locks
through the aforesaid tracts of land, and other adjacent tracts as
noted on said plot."
"And it is admitted that on 23 June, 1812, an inquisition was
held and condemnation had by said company, as appears by the papers
hereto annexed, and it is admitted, that the location of the land
so last condemned, and the new locks erected thereon, and the old
locks erected on the land condemned as aforesaid, in 1793, is truly
shown by a plot thereof made out by Thomas F. Percell and William
Bussard, hereto annexed."
"And it is further admitted that the Potomac Company, after said
respective condemnations, entered upon the lands so condemned and
erected thereon the locks as shown in the said plot, and continued
in possession until transferred to the defendants, the Chesapeake
& Ohio Canal Company, which latter company has continued in
possession ever since."
"Upon which case agreed it is submitted to the court to say 1st
whether the plaintiff has shown title, and 2d, whether the
condemnation of 1812, aforesaid, divested the plaintiff's title and
gave a valid title to the Potomac Company."
"It is agreed that all the papers, plots, &c., mentioned and
referred to in the aforegoing case agreed may be omitted in the
record of this case and may be used in the Supreme Court as if
contained in the record."
The circuit court gave judgment for the defendants, and the
plaintiff prosecuted this writ of error.
Page 33 U. S. 216
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL delivered the opinion of the
Court.
This was an action of ejectment brought by the lessee of Amos
Binney in the Court of the United States for the District of
Columbia sitting in the County of Washington. It was agreed by the
parties that the declaration should be amended by adding a demise
from J. K. Smith, one from the heirs of Amos Cloud, and one from
John Way. This amended declaration, however, does not appear in the
record and was not filed in the circuit court.
The following statement is made as forming a case agreed:
"The plaintiff's title depends on the title papers herewith
shown to the court, the due authentication of which is
admitted,
Page 33 U. S. 217
viz. the patents for Amsterdam and White Haven, and the
several mesne conveyances, decrees, &c., from the patentees
down to the plaintiffs, and it is admitted that the plaintiff's
lessor, J. K. Smith, was in possession in June, 1812, when the
condemnation hereinafter mentioned was made of the land comprised
within said condemnation, and that it is a part of the said two
tracts of land."
"It is admitted that the Potomac Company, in the year 1793,
condemned certain lands, as appears by their said inquisition and
condemnation and plot hereto annexed, for their canal and locks
through the aforesaid tracts of land, and other adjacent tracts, as
noted on said plot."
"And it is admitted that on 23 June, 1812, an inquisition was
held and condemnation had by said company, as appears by the papers
hereto annexed, and it is admitted that the location of the land so
last condemned, and the new locks erected thereon and the old locks
erected on the land condemned as aforesaid in 1793 is truly shown
by a plot thereof made out by Thomas F. Percell and William Bussard
hereto annexed."
"And it is further admitted that the Potomac Company, after said
respective condemnation, entered upon the lands so condemned and
erected thereon the locks as shown in the said plot, and continued
in possession until transferred to this defendant, the Chesapeake
& Ohio Canal Company, which said company has continued in
possession ever since."
"Upon which case agreed, it is submitted to the court to say
first whether the plaintiff has shown title, and second whether the
condemnation of 1812 aforesaid divested the plaintiff's title and
gave a valid title to the Potomac Company."
"It is agreed that all the papers mentioned and referred to in
the aforegoing case agreed may be omitted in the record of this
case and may be used in the Supreme Court as if contained in the
record."
The circuit court decided both points in favor of the
defendants, and the plaintiffs have brought the cause before this
Court by writ of error.
The abstract laid before the Court by consent of parties does
not show a regular title in the plaintiff, and the case does not,
we think, find a possession of twenty years anterior to the
Page 33 U. S. 218
inquisition, which would constitute a title in ejectment. It
presents evidence from which a jury might be justified in finding
possession -- evidence from which possession may be inferred, but
the Court cannot infer it.
The counsel for the plaintiffs in error contend that the
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Company, who claim their title under
the inquest, has admitted it, and is not now at liberty to
controvert it. On the influence of the inquest in this cause, some
contrariety of opinion prevails among the judges, but the
defendants in error have made a preliminary question which, if
decided in their favor, will terminate the present suit.
The declaration in ejectment is dated on 22 May 1831, and the
judgment was rendered on 14 January, 1832. The plaintiff in
ejectment counts on a demise made by Amos Binney on 1 January,
1828. His title, as shown in the abstract, commenced on 17 May,
1828, which is subsequent to the demise on which the plaintiff
counts. Though the demise is a fiction, the plaintiff must count on
one which, if real, would support his action.
We find in the record an entry that the declaration is amended
by adding a demise from J. K. Smith, one from the heirs of Amos
Cloud and another from John Way. These counts, however, do not
appear, and the Court would feel great difficulty in framing
them.
If this difficulty could be overcome, the abstract shows that J.
K. Smith conveyed all his title on 17 May, 1828, before this action
was commenced.
It also shows that the title of Amos Cloud's heirs was conveyed
from them by deeds bearing date in 1846 and 1819.
John Way, the remaining lessor of the plaintiff, conveyed his
title by deed dated 6 October, 1815.
Had these additional counts been filed, neither of the lessors
possessed any title when this ejectment was brought or when it was
tried. The case therefore could not have been aided by counts on
demises from them.
The counsel for the defendants have insisted that if the cause
cannot be decided on its supposed real merits, it ought to be
remanded to the circuit court for the purpose of receiving such
modifications as will bring before this Court those
Page 33 U. S. 219
questions of law on which the rights of the parties depend.
Where error exists in the proceedings of the circuit court which
will justify a reversal of its judgment, this Court may send back
the cause with such instructions as the justice of the case may
require. But if, in point of law, the judgment ought to be
affirmed, it is the duty of this Court to affirm it.
10 U. S. 6 Cranch
268. We cannot with propriety reverse a decision which conforms to
law and remand a cause for further proceedings.
The judgment of the circuit court is
Affirmed with costs.
This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record
from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of
Columbia holden in and for the County of Washington and was argued
by counsel, on consideration whereof it is ordered and adjudged by
this Court that the judgment of the said circuit court be and the
same is hereby affirmed with costs.
