T. Boon, a citizen and resident of Pennsylvania, filed a bill in
the Circuit Court of Kentucky against W. Chiles and others praying
that the defendant and such others of the defendants as may hold
the legal title to certain lands may be decreed to convey them to
him and for general relief.
The bill states that Reuben Searcy, being entitled to one moiety
of a settlement and preemption right of 1,400 acres of land located
in Licking, sold the same to William Hay in September, 1781, and
executed a bond for a conveyance. In December following, Hay
assigned this bond to George Boon,
who, in April, 1783, assigned it to the plaintiff. Hay, while he
held the bond, obtained an assignment of the plat and certificate
of survey, which he caused to
be registered, and the patent was issued in his name in 1785. In
1802, the plaintiff made a conditional sale of this land to
Hezekiah Boon, but the conditions were not complied with and the
contract was considered by both parties as a nullity. Yet a certain
William Chiles, and the said Hezekiah Boon and George Boon,
fraudulently uniting the plaintiff's name with their own, without
his consent or knowledge, filed a bill in chancery praying that the
heirs of Hay might be decreed to convey the legal title to the said
William Chiles, who claimed the right of Searcy through the
plaintiff, under his pretended sale to Hezekiah Boon. A decree was
obtained under which a conveyance was made to Chiles by a
commissioner appointed by the court. The plaintiff avers his total
ignorance of these transactions at the time, and disavows them.
While this suit was depending, the decree of Bourbon court was
reversed in the court of appeals of the state, and the cause
remanded to that court for further proceedings.
The complainant died, and the suit was revived in the name of
his heirs. The complainants amended their bill, showing a reversal
of the decree of Bourbon court and making the heirs of Hay
defendants and praying a conveyance from
them. Their amended bill is not in the record. They also filed
an amended bill making the heirs of George Boon parties and stating
that his heirs disclaimed all title to the property. One of them
answered and disclaimed title. It is not stated whether process was
or was not executed on the other heirs of George Boon.
The defendant, William Chiles, in his answer states that there
were other heirs of Hay than those mentioned in the bill and made
defendants who are not residents of Kentucky.
The Circuit Court of Kentucky was divided in opinion on two
questions which were certified to this Court as follows:
"1st. This Court being then divided and the judges opposed in
opinion as to the jurisdiction over the case and unable therefore
to render a decree on the merits, it resolved to adjourn that
question to the Supreme Court, to-wit, under all the circumstances
appearing as above, can this Court entertain cognizance of the
case. "
Page 33 U. S. 533
2d. The judges were also opposed in opinion on the point whether
the complainants were entitled to a decree in the absence of any
proof that the persons made defendants in the amended bill, as
heirs of George Boon were in fact his heirs, both of which points
occurred and became material in this case.
By the court:
"The question between the plaintiffs and the defendant William
Chiles is within the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court for the
District of Kentucky, and may be decided by that court, though
Hay's heirs were not parties to the suit. That they were made
parties cannot oust the jurisdiction as between those who are
properly before the court."
It is not intended to say that where there are several heirs,
some out of the jurisdiction of the court, a decree may not be made
for a conveyance of their own shares from those on whom process has
been served, but it is not thought necessary to decide that
question in this case as it is stated.
The principles settled in the answer to the first question
decide the second. George Boons heirs are not necessarily
defendants. They can have no interest in the contest, nor is any
decree asked against them. If they are made defendants, and the
answer admits that they are heirs, as is admitted by the defendant
who has answered, no further proof can be required. If they do not
answer, and the process is executed, so that the bill is taken for
confessed,
no further proof is necessary. If the process be not executed
they are not before the court.
The case was submitted to the court upon printed arguments,
prepared by the counsel for the complainants and the defendants in
the circuit court.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL delivered the opinion of the
Court.
In this cause the judges of the court for the Seventh Circuit
and District of Kentucky were divided in opinion on two questions,
which were ordered to be certified to this Court in the following
manner.
"1st. This Court being then divided, and the judges opposed in
opinion as to the jurisdiction over the case, and unable therefore
to render a decree on the merits, they resolve to adjourn that
question to the Supreme Court: to-wit, under all the circumstances
appearing as above, can this Court entertain cognizance of the
case."
"2d. The judges were also opposed in opinion on the point
Page 33 U. S. 534
whether the complainants were entitled to a decree in the
absence of any proof that the persons made defendants in the
amended bill as heirs of George Boon were in fact his heirs, both
of which points occurred and became material in this case."
1st. The first question adjourned to this Court is under all the
circumstances appearing as above, can this Court (the circuit court
for the District of Kentucky) entertain cognizance of the case?
The circumstances mentioned above are that Thomas Boon, a
citizen and resident of Pennsylvania, filed a bill in that court in
January, 1823, against William Chiles and others, citizens and
residents in Kentucky, praying that the defendant Chiles or such
other of the defendants as may hold the legal title may be decreed
to convey to him certain lands in the bill mentioned and for
general relief.
The bill states that Reuben Searcy, being entitled to one moiety
of a settlement, and preemption right of fourteen hundred acres of
land, located in Licking, sold the same to William Hay, in
September, 1781, and executed a bond for a conveyance. In December
following, Hay assigned this bond to George Boon, who, in April,
1783, assigned it to the plaintiff. Hay, while he held the bond,
obtained an assignment of the plat and certificate of survey, which
he caused to be registered; and the patent was issued in his name
in 1785.
The bill states that in 1802, the plaintiff made a conditional
sale of this land to Hezekiah Boone, but the conditions were not
complied with, and the contract was considered by both parties as a
nullity. Yet a certain William Chiles and the said Hezekiah Boon
and George Boon fraudulently uniting the plaintiff's name with
their own without his consent or knowledge, filed a bill in
chancery, praying that the heirs of Hay might be decreed to convey
the legal title to the said William Chiles, who claimed the right
of Searcy, through the plaintiff, under his pretended sale to
Hezekiah Boon. A decree was obtained under which a conveyance was
made to Chiles by a commissioner appointed by the court. The
plaintiff avers his total ignorance of these transactions at the
time and disavows them.
While this suit was depending, the decree of Bourbon court
Page 33 U. S. 535
was reversed in the court of appeals of the state, and the cause
remanded to that court for further proceedings.
The complainant died, and the suit was revived in the name of
his heirs.
The case states that the complainants amended their bill,
showing a reversal of the decree of Bourbon court and making the
heirs of Hay defendants, and praying a conveyance from them. Their
amended bill is not in the record. They also filed an amended bill
making the heirs of George Boon parties and stating that his heirs
disclaimed all title to the property. One of them answered and
disclaimed title. It is not stated whether process was or was not
executed on the other heirs of George Boon.
The defendant, William Chiles, in his answer states, that there
were other heirs of Hay than those mentioned in the bill and made
defendants who are not residents of Kentucky.
Upon this statement, the Court is required to say whether the
circuit court for the District of Kentucky can take cognizance of
the case.
No controversy exists between the plaintiffs and William Chiles
respecting the title of Searcy or his conveyance to Hay or that of
Hay to George Boon or the conveyance of George Boon to Thomas Boon.
Both claim under three several conveyances; both admit and assert
their validity. Chiles contends that Thomas Boon sold this
equitable title to Hezekiah Boon, under whom he claims, which sale
the plaintiffs deny. This, then, is the single point in issue
between the parties. If the case is in such a situation as to
enable the circuit court to take cognizance of this question, it
has jurisdiction.
The bill states a contract between Thomas and Hezekiah Boon for
the sale of the property, which contract, it charges, became void
by consent of parties, and that Chiles purchased from Hezekiah Boon
with full knowledge that it was void and that the equitable title
still remained in Thomas Boon. That with this knowledge, he
fraudulently filed a bill in the name of himself and of the said
Thomas, who was totally ignorant of the transaction, praying that
the heirs of Hay might be decreed to convey to him. This decree was
obtained, but has been since reversed.
It is clear that the heirs of Hay can have no interest in
this
Page 33 U. S. 536
contest between the heirs of Thomas Boon and William Chiles, and
need not be made parties but for the purpose of obtaining a
conveyance of the legal title if it still remains in them. The
court may very properly decree as between Boon's heirs and Chiles,
although the heirs of Hay should not be parties. Chiles is in
possession of a contract for the sale of Boon's equitable title,
which Boon alleged to be totally invalid and to have been
fraudulently acquired. His heirs now allege it. Chiles maintains
that the sale from Thomas to Hezekiah Boon was absolute and
bona fide, and that the whole equitable interest of Thomas
Boon is legally and justly vested in him. The heirs of Thomas Boon
may certainly come into a court of equity and ask its decree to
compel William Chiles to surrender this contract if it has indeed
become a nullity, or to enjoin him perpetually from the use of it,
or to convey any legal title he may have acquired under color of it
to those who possess the real equitable right. Should the court be
unable to decree against Hay's heirs, it may decree as between
Boon's heirs and William Chiles so far as respects the title of
Chiles under Boon if the bill be so framed as to enable the court
to grant that relief.
The original bill, as has already been shown, charges that
Chiles purchased from Hezekiah Boon knowing that he had no
equitable right, and fraudulently prosecuted that right in the name
of Thomas Boon, without his consent or knowledge. It prays for a
conveyance of the legal title from those who may possess it, and
also prays for general relief. This last prayer entitles the
plaintiff to any relief which may be granted under his bill and
which is not inconsistent with the specific relief for which he
asks. It must be admitted that had the bill prayed specifically for
a surrender of the contract under which Chiles claimed, the court
might have decreed it had the testimony justified such a decree,
and it will be conceded that this relief is not inconsistent with
that for which the bill particularly prays.
We think, therefore, that the question between the plaintiffs
and the defendant William Chiles is within the jurisdiction of the
circuit court for the District of Kentucky, and may be decided by
that court, though Hay's heirs were not parties to
Page 33 U. S. 537
the suit. That they were made parties cannot oust the
jurisdiction as between those who are properly before the
court.
It is not intended to say that where there are several heirs,
some out of the jurisdiction of the court, a decree may not be made
for a conveyance of their own shares, from those on whom process
has been served, but it is not thought necessary to decide that
question in this case as it is stated.
The principles settled in the answer to the first question
decide the second. George Boon's heirs are not necessarily
defendants. They can have no interest in the contest, nor is any
decree asked against them. If they are made defendants, and the
answer admits that they are heirs, as is admitted by the defendant
who has answered, no further proof can be required. If they do not
answer, and the process is executed, so that the bill is taken for
confessed, no further proof is necessary. If the process be not
executed, they are not before the court.
We do not perceive that in this case, as stated, any proof
respecting the heirs of George Boon ought to be required.
The court directs the following certificate.
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
Kentucky, and on the questions and points on which the judges of
the said court were opposed in opinion, and which was certified to
this Court for its opinion, agreeably to the act of Congress in
such case made and provided, and was argued by counsel, on
consideration whereof this Court is of opinion
1. That under the circumstances stated in the certificate of the
judges, the said circuit court could entertain cognizance of the
case.
2. That the want of proof that the persons made defendants in
the amended bill as the heirs of George Boon were in fact his heirs
is no obstruction to a decree on the merits of the cause.
All of which is hereby ordered and adjudged to be certified to
the said circuit court under the seal of this Court.
