Where the death of a party complainant was suggested at December
term, 1851, of this Court, and his legal representatives did not
appear by the tenth day of this term, the bill must, as to him, be
entered, abated under the 61st rule of this Court.
As to the other complainant, the allegation that a deed which
she executed ought to be set aside upon the ground of fraud and
misrepresentation and inadequacy of price is not sustained by the
evidence, nor is the allegation that she was a joint tenant, and
not a tenant in common, sustained by a construction of the
deed.
Where the complainant, after filing his bill, conveyed all his
interest to a trustee and died pending an appeal which he took to
this Court, the trustee cannot be permitted to be made a party to
the proceedings in this Court. The only persons who can appear in
the stead of the complainant are those who, upon his death, succeed
to the interest he then had and upon whom the estate then
devolves.
The case is stated in the opinion of the Court.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE TANEY delivered the opinion of the Court.
Page 58 U. S. 44
The case is this:
Pierre Barribeau was seised in fee simple of a lot of ground in
the Town of St. Louis, and by deed dated May 8, 1829, conveyed it
to Joseph White in trust for the grantor during his life and after
his death for his two sons, Adrian and Pierre, and his adopted
daughter, Euphrasie, who had grown up in his family.
After the death of the grantor, his sons, Adrian and Pierre, and
White, the trustee, joined in a deed to Brant, the appellee, for
all the interest of the two sons in the lot. But at the time this
deed was made, Pierre had not attained the age of twenty-one years.
Subsequently, however, he executed a deed of confirmation, and in
that deed professed to convey two undivided third parts of the
premises.
Euphrasie, the adopted daughter, executed a deed to Amaranth
Loiselle purporting to convey the whole of this lot. And afterwards
she and Amaranth made separate deeds on the same day to Samuel
Merry for her third part of the premises, and Merry afterwards
conveyed to Brant. If, therefore, the several deeds above mentioned
are valid, Brant is entitled to the whole lot.
Adrian died intestate and without issue. And after his death
Pierre and Euphrasie filed this bill, charging that all of the
deeds made by them respectively, and by Adrian in his lifetime,
were obtained by misrepresentation and fraud, that they were
illiterate, and did not understand the object and effect of these
instruments when they were executed, and that the consideration
paid was far below the real value of the property. The bill further
charged that Pierre was still under the age of twenty-one when he
made the deed of confirmation.
The answer of Brant denies all fraud and misrepresentation, and
avers that the parties were perfectly aware of the contents of the
several instruments when they were executed, and that the price was
a fair one, according to the value of the property at that time,
and that Pierre was of full age when he made the deed of
confirmation.
Many witnesses were examined by the parties in support of their
respective allegations, and, at the final hearing, the bill of the
complainants was dismissed by the circuit court. And from this
decree the complainants have brought this appeal.
It would be tedious and useless, in this opinion, to go into an
examination of the testimony given by the different witnesses. Much
of it has very little if any bearing upon the question in dispute.
It is very evident, indeed, that the complainants were
Page 58 U. S. 45
illiterate and weak-minded. But there is abundant proof that
they were perfectly aware of the contents of the several
instruments, and of the object and purpose for which they were
executed. And although the prices paid for the different interests
were undoubtedly very moderate; yet they were not so inadequate as
to authorize the court to declare the deeds void on that ground.
The inadequacy must be tested by the value of the property at the
time of the sales, and not by its present value. The first deed
from the two Barribeaus and White to the respondents, was made
September 3, 1833. The deed of confirmation from Pierre, August 7,
1836, and the deeds from Euphrasie, and Amaranth Loiselle to Merry,
February 1, 1836. The complainants did not seek to disturb these
conveyances, or take any measures to impeach them, until March 20,
1849, when this bill was filed, and when property in St. Louis was
greatly enhanced in value, as compared with its value in 1833 and
1836. It is perhaps the great increase in the value of this
property between the time of the several sales and the time of
filing this bill, that has led to this controversy. But upon the
evidence in the record, we think the charge of fraud and
misrepresentation is not sustained, and that there is sufficient
proof, that Pierre was of full age at the time the deed of
confirmation was executed.
It has been contended on the part of the complainants that under
the deed from Pierre Barribeau, the elder, to White, the three
cestui que trusts took a joint interest, and that upon the
death of one or more of them without lawful issue, the share of the
deceased was limited over to the survivors or survivor. And as
Adrian died before the filing of the bill and Pierre has died
pending this appeal, and both of them without lawful issue,
Euphrasie, the surviving complainant, claims the entire lot by
virtue of the limitations over in the deed of trust. And if this be
the construction of the deed, she is entitled to a decree for the
shares of the two sons, although she has sold and conveyed her own
one-third as above stated.
But this construction cannot be maintained. The trust deed, it
is true, is unskillfully drawn. But is very clear upon the whole
instrument that an equitable interest, as tenants in common in fee
simple, was secured to them by the deed, and that their
conveyances, together with that of the trustee, passed the whole
interest, legal and equitable, to the respective purchasers.
It appears that shortly after this bill was filed, Pierre, the
complainant, conveyed all his interest in the property to Benjamin
A. Massey in trust for a natural daughter, born of an Indian mother
and living in the Indian country, and a motion has been made to
make him a party in this Court, as the representative of
Pierre.
Page 58 U. S. 46
The decision of this motion either way could have no influence
upon the rights of the parties. For as the Court is of opinion that
the deed of confirmation made by Pierre was valid, and conveyed his
one-third to the appellee, the decree in the court below dismissing
the bill must be affirmed even if Massey was permitted to
appear.
But in this stage of the proceedings he cannot be permitted to
become a party as the representative of Pierre. The bill was filed
by Pierre and this appeal taken by him. He has died pending this
appeal, and the only persons who, upon principles of law and the
rules of this Court, can be permitted to appear in his stead are
those who, upon his death, succeed to the interest he then had and
upon whom the estate then devolves.
But the interest of Massey was acquired in the lifetime of
Pierre, and no new interest accrued to him upon Pierre's death, and
if he desired to become a party in order to maintain his rights as
trustee, he should have applied for leave to become a complainant
while the case was pending in the circuit court. The estate has not
devolved upon him by the death of Pierre, and he has the same
interest now which he had upon the execution of the deed, and has
no greater right to become a party here after Pierre's death than
he had before.
In the opinion of the Court, therefore, as Pierre's death was
suggested at December term, 1851, and his legal representatives
have not appeared by the tenth day of this term, the bill must, as
to him, be
Entered abated under the 61st rule of this Court. And as
regards Euphrasie, the other complainant, it must be dismissed with
costs.
Order
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
Missouri, and was argued by counsel. On consideration whereof, it
is now here ordered and decreed by this Court, that this appeal, as
to Pierre Barribeau, be, and the same is hereby abated pursuant to
the 61st rule of this Court, and it is further ordered and decreed
that this appeal as to Euphrasie T. Perry be and the same is hereby
dismissed with costs.